Talk:Indian National Army

anti-British?
Excuse me Wikipedia but I have a complaint about this article. There are several parts in it which I feel are anti-British and pro-terrorism. Please look into this. "Leithp"

What may appear as "anti-British and pro-terrorism" are neither anti-British nor pro-terrorist as you would like to have the reader believe but an inalienable part of a troubled phase of British-Indian history that led to its culmination in Indian Independence. Whether your education system has taught you otherwise or not, or whether you would not like to believe otherwise, merely parroting some biased facts written by some racist British or Scottish historian is NOT going to change, neither is going to alter history. For once, why don't you get the other side's perspective by getting the books written by the sufferer's (i.e. Indian) perspective (Brothers Against the Raj --- A biography of Indian Nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose by Leonard A. Gordon; Lost hero : a biography of Subhas Bose by Mihir Bose; Netaji and India's freedom : proceedings of the International Netaji Seminar edited by Sisir K. Bose might be good starting points)  ? The tradition of violence had (in addition to Gandhian nonviolence) had a significant contribution to Indian Independence movement whether you accept or not. Being anti-British does not equate as pro-terrorism. Calling freedom fighters as terrorists and altering facts is a very clever strategy of rewriting history of which you contribute but a small part. To stress this point, I would like to give an example: William Wallace or the "Braveheart" may have been a "terrorist" to the British, not certainly to the Scottish, Michael Collins may have been a "terrorist" to the British, not certainly to the Irish, and certainly never Giuseppe Mazzini or Giuseppe Garibaldi for the Italians.

I appreciate your concerns in the wake of the London bombings over what you perceive as terrorism, but attempting to alter historical salience is a rather specious and cheap way to do so. The use of that term should be restricted for other postmodern causalities and eventualities of our otherwise troubled era, which suffers for want of brave and honest people like those who gave their lives for freedom fighting for the INA or in street demonstrations protesting against its unjust trials, rather than the likes of Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden. The latter may equate as terrorists for our era (but maybe a century from now may see them in a different light). But the contribution of the INA will always go down in history as one of stepping stones in the long and arduous route to freedom for the Indian subconinent. Judged by those standards, your arguments, or the lack thereof, do NOT hold much water.

Sincerely, LordGulliverofGalben


 * The comments above are not mine, as you would have seen had you checked the history, so I will not address your points on terrorism, which isn't something I regard as relevant in a discussion of the INA. What is relevant is WP:NPOV, which I strongly suggest you read. This is an encyclopedia reflecting a neutral perspective and the tone of the article did not reflect this. Leithp (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"Leithp" May I ask the source of this factually incorrect information: "32 demonstrators died and over 200 were wounded, as well as over 200 soldiers being wounded." Also what exactly is there in the omitted paragraph that does not maintain a NPOV? If instead of hurriedly changing the text, you had taken some time to read the reference materials I mentioned earlier, it would perhaps been much more civil behavior on your part and perhaps more Wikipedially pertinent. LordGulliverofGalben


 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The NPOV section I removed was this:
 * All over the Indian subcontinent, the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, divided by ideology, joined hands in demanding freedom of the I.N.A. prisoners of war. The I.N.A had for them, so visibly elucidated by Mahatma Gandhi, achieved what individually the Congress, the League and Gandhiji could not: putting the cause of the Indian nation state above communal, sectarian and divisive ideologues and thereby joining hands to expel the British. The greeting of Jai Hind had transcended all other religious and communal oriented greetings.
 * Support for the INA was not unanimous as this suggests. This section, moreover, expresses the opinion of the author as regards the importance of the INA in achieving independence.


 * The source of my information regarding the casualties of the demonstration was The Lost Hero : A Biography of Subhas Bose ISBN 070432301X, one of the sources you referenced above. Extracts are available here. I removed the emotive claims of "cripples, women and children" being injured as I was unable to find any independent confirmation of this.


 * Wikipedia is not about expressing a "right" version of history, any opinions expressed should be clearly identifiable and attributed. They should certainly not be those of the author(s). Leithp (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a source for the statement "of the 75,000 British Indian soldiers in Japanese hands, 70,000 joined the INA"? This conflicts with accounts I have read of recruitment among POWs. While large numbers of troops did join the INA, I don't believe that it was in the region of 90%, as suggested here. I have removed it from the page for the moment. Leithp (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem's on my end; I just went back and checked my source, which was Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's "Modern South Asia," and I'd misread the number; it should have read 40,000 out of 45,000, which meshes with the figures you had. Assuming there are no problems with that, I'll put something to that effect up in a day or so.  What I'd like to know is the civilian enlistment.  The S.C. Bose article says 85,000 total, which would mean 45,000 civilian out of an expat community of 2 million, which sounds reasonable, but I'd like to find corroboration in sources for that before I put it up.  Have you seen anything?  Robth  13 November 2005


 * 40,000 from 45,000 is the figure given by John Keegan in his The Second World War. So that's at least some corroboration. Leithp (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well one day the British Empire will be resurrected. And then I`ll be the one who`s laughing. Good Day

Mohan Singh Deb
My information is that Rashbehari Bose, political president of the Provisional Government of Free India appointed Capt. Mohan Singh Deb as the commander of the Free Indian Army; that as South-East and South Asians realized during the Japanese occupations that the Japs were even worse than the Europeans, and began to resist, Deb also turned and ceased to cooperate, was seized, taken to Sumatra and later executed, and that Hitler sent Subhashchandra Bose by submarine to his Jap allies to restart the Free Indian Army.

Yet, I never find any information on Deb, and no sympathy or acknowledgement by Bharatiyas for him and his actions, or for the numerous Indian women raped by the Japanese in the Andaman & Nicobar Archipelago.

Why is it that no Indian ever celebrates Deb and his sacrifice? Is it because the Indians identify totally with Hitler and Tojo, as a matter of fact, most that I know, do?

Another important fact I have read somewhere is that the tendency of the Indians to continue to support the Japanese turned the Burmese and other Asian people against them, leading to the expulsion of Indians from Burma, etc. There is no discussion of this either.

Please note that I am not making assertions, but merely asking for a debate on these allegations.

WikiSceptic 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Er.....
"The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League both made the release of the three defendants the central issue of the massive independence movement of 1945-6."

Er...surely the central issue of the massive independence movement of 1945-6 was persuading the British to leave, and arguing over the division of the spoils once they did so? Also the Azad Hind Legion whose decorations are mentioned at the end was a unit affiliated to the Waffen-SS in Germany, and was never part of the INA. Does this section really belong on this page? Sikandarji 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Azad Hind Legion was not attached to the waffen ss till after two months of D-day landings. Besides, it was formally declared a part of INA after the formation of AHG, and a lot of troops and leadership were transferred to south asia by German blockade runners.Rueben lys 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting facts NEVER touched upon by Indians when writing about Bose...
... (And interesting stuff the Not-so-Indians don't talk about when talking about INA's fighting capacities and the context in which Bose launched Azad Hind).


 * 1) Only 6% of all Indian combatants in WWII were in the INA.
 * 2) 	Japanese and British (and even contemporary Indian) sources agree that the INA were terrible fighters, so prone to surrendering and fleeing that the Japanese often kept them away from the front lines and used them as guards and coolies.
 * 3) 	His allies viewed Indians with contempt, Japanese officers would not treat INA officers as equals.
 * 4) 	There were well d[ocu]emented and incredibly cruel atrocities against innocent Indians on Indian soil and abroad.
 * 5) 	The British kept their word and retreated from India soon after WWII, in retrospect making his whole fratricidal campaign (pitting Indian troops against Indian troops) quite pointless, and vindicating the Indian troops who fought for the British against Fascism.

When one considers all of the above (completely valid and correct) points, Bose seems rather a misguided figure. Unfortunately Indian intellectuals would completely eradicate any such comments in the main text. This is another deeply biased article which tells us a lot more about modern patriotic Indian sensibilities than Mr. Nazi Bose, the completely incompetent INA and his criminal bedfellows.


 * Funny Bose should be considered a criminal bedfellow and a Nazi by God-knows-who-you-are when the British (and I am not saying you are British) acted like Bustards in India for 200 years. Also, I don't know what books you've been reading, but if it's the one of those that says that an INA soldier had to shoot seven times before he could kill an Australian PoW, I'd say read a bit deeper, 'cause the para above it says he was great fighter and one of the elite soldier's unit when he was in the British Army. And talking about fighting capacity and stuff, anybody knows who is held most culpabale for the fall of Singapore??? Anybody knows why Aussies call their running shoes Gordon Bennets??? Have a look here . Especially the last two paras.

Netaji was our real fighter and freedom leader.He was forced to to accept German aid because USSR did not help him,to achieve success enemy's enemy is my enemy,he simply used that.


 * Hmm ... let's see now:


 * ... 45,000 followed Bose and joined the INA.


 * ... while around 2,000,000 (two million) joined the Indian Army - the largest volunteer army in history.


 * ... that doesn't make it look as if Mr. Bose had much popular support, does it. In fact, in comparison with the numbers who joined the Indian Army, it looks as if he was pretty unpopular

Ref: [[Image:Azadcomm.jpg]]
does not exist, someone please upload it or I am going to delete the link.--Victor.P.Das 22:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleted. --Victor.P.Das 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Combat Effectiveness
Er, the rest of the piece at the link posted as a reference to this assertion reads

"The bid to take Imphal was frustrated by the collapse of Japan's supplies and the Allies' total control of the skies. It was at this stage that two INA officers went over to the British side. The deserters not only botched the attack but also gave the British a graphic account of the INA's desperate situation.

The British decision to retreat was reversed, reinforcements sent and air attacks on the INA and Japanese troops intensified to force the hungry and thirsty expeditionary force to retreat."

Doesn't sound like much of a victory to me. As far as I know, the Japanese never really trusted the INA or provided it with modern weapons and logistical support. Disentangling its "victories" against the British Indian Army from those of the Imperial Japanese Army is difficult, and it is certainly fair to say that militarily the INA was pretty ineffective. As a propaganda weapon, and in terms of the response to the trial of the INA officers, its impact was much more considerable. Sikandarji 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The majority fo the INA were captured in 1942 before the British and Indian Armies had instigated proper jungle training, training before Japan entered the war previously being aimed at desert fighting for the North African Campaign.

Reverting edit by Torb37
Torb37 makes two points in a very POV way which he does not back with references. The first is a quote or words attributed to a person which are not referenced, and also written in what seemed very ill-organised way. This edit also attributes the term 5th columnist to the recruits of the INA and goes on to raise questions about Patriotism.

First of all, everything that Torb37 says have already been discussed and noted in either this page or the Azad Hind Page. Secondly, his edit seems very POV, in the wrong section of the article (there is a section dealing with after effects of INA, which talks about the perceptions as collaborators, which is what Torb37 seems to be alluding to). Also there is a referenced view point noted in the section which notes that the INA soldiers where seen as patriots by the soldiers of the Indian Army who fought for the allies, after end of the war.

Reversion of the eidt that majority of INA troops were sikhs
I have reverted the edit that majority of the INA troops were Sikhs. This is because some unreferenced sources I have claim that large majority were south Indians, mostly Tmails, while others assert that a large number were Sikhs, which will be unsurprising since a large number of Indian Troops were (and still are) Sikhs. But if you're quoting on the demographic, I think it is helpful if you can provide a reference since it will also help to expand on the demographics itself as a whole and not just one community, which may also seem like a POV assertion. It is possible that a large number of the civillian volunteers of the INA were South Indians while a large number of the troops derived from the British Indian army were sikhs, I would like this clarified.Rueben lys 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In these context, I believe Torb's quote can ve preserved but only if referenced. Also, overt POV should not be added (specially in the wrong section) unless it is referenced to accepted view points on an issue like this.

Article is opinionated
Parts of the article seems to be personal opinion and speculation. I refer to the parts where it is discussed that granting freedom to India has been largely the work of the mutineers, and not the Congress and Gandhi. Though I personally believe it to be true, this cannot the stated so flatly in this article. However, it seems very probably, and that the future led Congress led governments of India might have overemphasized their role in the freedom struggle. The contemporary history books reflect this to a large extent. -Unregistered user, 12 March 2007

Kohima
This section seems to give the INA too much of a presence on the battlefield - U-GO was a predominantly Japanese offensive. And why does it mention 'Anglo-American positions?' There was no American presence in the area, aside from US air support! 14th Army was a Commonwealth army. Darkmind1970 08:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorting this out (will take a bit of time). But the INA did have a substantial commitment in taking Kohima (See Forgotten Armies by Bailey and Harper, The Forgotten Army by Peter Fay, and Jungle Alliance by Joyce Lebra). I agree though a lot of the article needs clearing up and sorting out facts.Rueben lys 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But they didn't take Kohima at all! And why insist on this bit about "Anglo-American" positions again? They were Commonwealth - there was NO US ground presence at Imphal-Kohima. The only US troops in Burma were with Stilwell in the north of the country. Darkmind1970 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say they "took" Kohima, (I think, haven't looked properly). The assault on Kohima intially took the upperhand, and the INA's commitment here was a major factor.(as far as I know). As I said, I'd need to sort through this stuff. Gimme a few weeks.Rueben lys 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea - I'll look through my books as well so that we can try and come to some kind of a consensus. In the meantime I'm going to remove the 'Anglo-American lines' phrase that keeps making me want to grind my teeth. It's utterly incorrect for the Battle of Kohima. Darkmind1970 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Help Improve
I have expanded this article a lot, and added and am still adding a lot of stuff. I am just a bit surprised going through all the above discussions and comments, and comparing it with what I am reading in Fay. It is clear there are two diametrically opposing PoVs here and some of the editors have deliberately tried to introduce this in the article to promote these, in spite of being aware of established work that totally opposes it. I think it is important to set the Propaganda (both Indian and British) aside and try and help improve the article with facts and not how you would like this army to be seen (includes views as savage turncoats and views as freedom fighter).Rueben lys 13:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Shooting Sikh POWs pic
I included this pic in the section Motivation if only because of the following line in the text:
 * Others, especially ICOs and VCOs have said that they initially joined the first INA to prevent any possible ill-treatment of their subordinate Indian soldiers.

Any thoughts on that? I thought this image is relevant to the article and must go somewhere! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the photo of "Sikh" prisoners being shot, first of all I cant verify the source in the IWM website. Moreover, you mentioned that the threat of ill-treatment may have been a strong motivation to join up, whereas all the references I read cite mostly three factors for the INA recruits. These are the devaluation of the Raj and the vulnerability around the surrender at singapore, the prospect of a more successful career, and lastly (this is more post 1942) the charisma of Bose. See eg, Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army, by Stephen P. Cohen, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 1963-1964), pp. 411-429.

I know there are mentions of threat of ill-treatment, but quite consistently, I am yet to read about forcible recruitment or of joining under duress, although some of the officer corps joined to prevent possible ill-treatment of their troops.

One of the reasons why I moved the image is there is a strong PoV that the INA were "traitors", and that image to me seemed to be put in to imply this view point, which really is quite a strong PoV position. I admit I myself may be seeing it in a skewed light. I have not undone the revision, but would appreciate your views and comments. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my talk for response. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * " ... strong PoV that the INA were 'traitors' ... ", - actually, as they opposed the legitimate Government of India, and sided with one of that Government's enemies in a time of war, then that is exactly what they were. Traitors. So not only is it not 'PoV', it is actually verifiable fact.

"Hasty end [to the Raj]"
The last sentence of the first para. says this:


 * These events in the twilight of the Raj are accepted to have played a crucial role in its hasty end.

Was this necessarily a good thing, given that Partition was essentially botched, and more time should have been given to the people and provincial authorities to prepare for it? What do you think? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what the reply to this is, since attempting to judge wether the affects of INA trials on a hasty end of the Raj with reference to Partition,and thence wether that was a good or a bad thing, would border on WP:OR. I think the history of INA ends more or less with the millitary unrests in 1946, possibly stretched to the cabinet missions etc. There isn't really much after that that can be linked to INA. The other stuff on Malayasian congress, Hyderabad resistance, etc are more of an epilogue. I will try to refine the article a bit more in a few weeks time, and see if it can be improved enough to be a GA and FA. But I wouldn't want to put OR or judgements on this article (and rewrite those places where these have crept in), since that along with strong PoVs, is one of the main problems that I thought made this article rather sub-standard in the past. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
I see you started a new article on this. I have no problem with that and see no POV problems. Controversies by definition involve diametrically opposed POVs. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag ?
I'd have a question about the flag used by the Indian National Army. One image (shown left) shows the flag jumping to the left, while two other ones (shown right) show the tiger jumping to the right. Was there a change of flag between the Indische Legion and the Indian National Army, or is this a mistake ? I'd also have another question : the Flag of India article states that the 1931 flag (left below) was used by the INA as a battle ensign. Is there a source for that, or was it, on the contrary, used as a "national flag" by the Provisional government of Free India, while the "jumping tiger" flag was actually the flag of the INA, hence the battle flag of the government ? Any info by experts on the subject (with sources, if possible) would be welcome. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The right-jumping flag is possibly because the flag pole in the picture is on the right? In other words, the reverse side of the left-jumping flag? Just speculating here! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but wouldn't the words "Azad Hind" also be reversed ? Or were they sewn on both sides ? Does anyone have actual photos of the flag ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes would like to see the Hindi Army Also the Uniforms?
Would like to see the Hindi Army Flag and also were there special uniforms for the Free Indian Army? To set them apart from British Indian forces?HAAPSPENDEN (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Inexplicable?
I have flagged the sentence "The Japanese forces is said to have carried out torture on thousands of local inhabitants during the occupation, and some historians inexplicably apportion the blame to Subhas Bose's provisional government."

Apportioning the blame to Subhas Bose's provisional government may indeed be unfair, and I certainly don't doubt one can find sources that say so. So link them in.

Stating that this attitude is inexplicable seems decidedly unneutral. It's hardly inexplicable, even if it's unfair, for British historians to accuse a government they saw as a puppet collaborationist government of conniving in Japanese atrocities. Yaush (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I have just edited out this word. Do be bold and edit those sections you feel needs attention. rueben_lys 12:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Subhash Chandra Bose
Subhash Chandra Bose had been twice elected as the President of the Indian National Congress.He was of the opinion that while England was engaged in the Second World War, India should take advantage of the situation and intensify the agitation in India. If necessary, India should sek the help of the enmies of England. However, he developed differences of opinion with the senior leaders of the National congress. Therefore, Subhash Chandra Bose resigned from the osition of the Congress president. He founded a party called the 'Forward Bloc' in order to place his views before the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.204.110 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest news
According to latest news,after a debate,British government said that war against Indian National Army was toughest war,Britain ever fought,it should be added.Ovsek (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, this is incorrect. A survey said that the Battles of Imphal and Kohima were the toughest ever fought by the British Army. And those two battles were predominately fought against Japanese troops. The INA had a very small part in the battle. Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the pphoto of Japanese soldiers bayonetting Indian corpses?
I remember a previous photo of Japanese soldiers pointing guns at blindfolded Indian soldiers having been added to the article in the past. I am not sure what it or this photo adds to the article, especially in the section to do with INA trials. Of course if the argument is that INA soldiers joined because of coercion or fear of life then this needs to be subtantiated with references, as it is largely inconsistent with most major studies on the INA and it's recruits. If again the intenntion is to highlight that some Indian soldiers rather died than join theINA, then again this argument may be very POV if you're not counterbalancing with a depiction or illustration of thousands rushing to join in without coercion (Pardon the peacock terms if it appears). Please comment or otherwise explain the role and purpose of this photo or move it to a different article on Japanese war crimes.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyeditor's comments
I have done a copyedit of the article for grammar, spelling and sentence structure. I have fixed a couple of broken references, but I have not in any way done any reference-checking. Points that I have noticed while copyediting:


 * lots of links are dead
 * frequently the sources do not appear to be sufficient to justify the text they are supporting
 * I have some concerns over OR/NPOV aspects
 * some works that are referred to in inline citations do not appear in the reference section
 * quite a few WP:SUBMARINE links

Relentlessly (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Per a request for further clarification, I'm thinking of passages like this one:
 * Further criticisms have been made in recent years over the denial of the "freedom fighter's pension" awarded to those in the Gandhian movement and over the general hardships and apathy surrounding the conditions of former INA soldiers.
 * This is presented as a general fact, but the citation that supports it is a single news article about one case. There are a few such incidents in the article. It's not just newspaper articles, but historians as well. Even if you have three historians saying something, you have to be careful around WP:SYNTH, particularly on potentially controversial subjects like this one. If you are thinking about FA, I urge you to do a very careful review of the sourcing of every statement.
 * You would also do well to consider WP:CSECTION. Is there another way you could frame the "Controversy" section/daughter article?
 * I took out a lot of submarine links while editing. Here is one more: propaganda campaign. There are possibly some others, I think.
 * Finally, NPOV. I tried to tone this down while I was editing, but it's worth considering anyway. What portrayal of the INA dominates? Is it the Indian nationalist one? What critiques are there of this view? As I say, I tried to tone down excessively positive statements, but it's worth a good check through.
 * Relentlessly (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Relentlessly. I can address most of these. However I will have to point out that the Controversy section and the Controversies article are actually put in to make the article NPOV. The reason is there are quite diametrically opposing views on the army, as the lead will say. Further, very lightly aware reader will have one or the other PoV. I highlight to you the discussions in this talk page itself (see above), the discussion in the Controversies talk page, Tokyo boys talk page, that there "are" many PoVs some diametrically opposed to the other. The Controversy section and the sub-article in itself has had to be created to state that those PoVs exist without qualifying or commenting on these, and includes both positive and negative PoVs. Its a bit like talking about Chengiz Khan, to Mongolians he is a hero and to Hungarians he is the devil incarnate. Without mentioning both sides, any article on the unit as an article on the Khan would be incomplete. Its a bit like talking about Chengis Khan, to Mongolians he is a hero and to Hungarians he is the devil incarnate. Without mentioning both sides, any article on the unit as an article on the Khan would be incomplete. To avoid conflicts, it has been lumped together under a 'Controversies' section. PS. I think you raise important points, and I will copy and paste this to the peer review page.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:
Relentlessly raised some interesting points, and I have tried to edit the article appropriately. The main objectives were

a. Reference the controversies to specific people rather than making broad general statements. b. Depict both the PoVs regarding the army. The latter point is particularly important since both the "traitors" and "patriots" view points are fiarly widely and strongly held. I suspect in India "Patriots" is universal while in Britain "Traitors and Axis collaborators" view point is universal. This leaves the only NPOV solution to mention both with references. Note neither view here is minority and both are significant. I will welcome more comments. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree rather strongly with an NPOV (or all points-of-view) solution. (For some of the subtleties, see George Orwell's essay on Subhas Chandra Bose and the Wikipedia article on the Red Fort trials.
 * In the difference below, both the original language and the revision seem to be incomplete from opposite viewpoints:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_National_Army&curid=173386&diff=1149187529&oldid=1148985222&diffmode=source]] —— Shakescene (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many sources for saying Azad Hind was a Japanese puppet state. Similarly, INA was a Japanese puppet army and that has been heavily documented too by reliable sources. For example, Yuki Tanaka calls it "a puppet army under Japanese control". Others describe it as "puppet army composed of Indian prisoners of war", "a Japanese puppet organisation". and so on. Orientls (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal
While the new Indian National Army in Singapore contains some useful content, it isn't actually focused on the INA in Singapore - it's actually a general account of the force, and not really superior to this article. As such, the useful material not currently in the Indian National Army article should be merged here. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I should higlight Nick-D, I believe the information in the article Indian National Army in Singapore is already covered in First Indian National Army, Indian National Army, Indian Independence League, Bidadary resolutions and F Kikan. Best wishes. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Indian National Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809180542/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/images/nov_2_45.gif to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/images/nov_2_45.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930060023/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/images/nov_17_70.gif to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/images/nov_17_70.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033641/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/images/jan_23_71.gif to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/images/jan_23_71.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702000512/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/indiannationalarmy.htm to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/indiannationalarmy.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070902213838/http://www.yorozubp.com/netaji/ to http://www.yorozubp.com/netaji/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629001048/http://www.s-asian.cam.ac.uk/govt.html to http://www.s-asian.cam.ac.uk/govt.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140902125303/http://dblife.cs.wisc.edu/person/S._C._Bose to http://dblife.cs.wisc.edu/person/S._C._Bose
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65YhGbSmw?url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/ to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/Netaji/netajihomepage.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian National Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928064322/http://stampsofindia.com/readroom/b002.htm to http://stampsofindia.com/readroom/b002.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926213952/http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980622/17351114.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19980622/17351114.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Indian National Army in Singapore
There is another article that seems to be a very similar topic to this one: Indian National Army in Singapore. Perhaps they should be merged together? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge on the grounds that this page is already too big at over 100k and so can't really accommodate any more. Klbrain (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article as it exists is heavily duplicative of this one, but it could be a topic worth covering in a separate article. &mdash;innotata 14:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

INA 1St Division
Don't you all think that adding order of battle of INA will be a good idea? 1st Division - Subhash Brigade (1st Guerrilla Regiment) - Gandhi Brigade (2nd Guerrilla Regiment) - Azad Brigade (3rd Guerrilla Regiment) - Nehru Brigade (4th Guerrilla Regiment) Reserve (for lack of better words) - Rani Jhansi Regiment Iamgreat4eva (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Collaborator vs freedom fighter
There has been marked change in the article, initially written with painstaking attention to NPOV. There appears to be a team of editors very keen to hoist the tag "collaborator" on this organisation, which is at painstaking odds with the Indian perception of this unit as very patriotic freedom fighters. Of note Collaborator is a pejorative term, and I have a deep suspicion that this is the intention of foisting the identitiy in the lead. This ofcourse necessarily makes it PoV as it igniores a diametrically opposing view that Indians hold of this unit. This view was common in the 1960s and 70s in Oxford and Cambridge old boy historians who had lived through the war. Input from other editors are welcomerueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. What "opposing view that Indians hold of this unit" is irrelevant unless you have WP:RS which would debunk this view. INA being a mere collaborator or puppet of Imperial Japan is a prevalent fact today as well. See:
 * Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have very limited idea of how inflammatory and limited your comment appears. Equally it is surprising to me that you have used the "Reliable source" to argument to dismiss one PoV in favour of another, while at the same time dismissing the books that are considered The authoritative histories on the unit, whilst relying on sentences plucked from history books etc delving on the time. I know I because I wrote this artcle in 2007. I have requested admin oversight on this.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * BTW, I am finding it difficult to accept you know of this subject, yet do not know of this differences of this POV (which is leaving me struggling to assume good faith on your part. Yet stating the obvious here is a google search to show Indians see them as freedom fighters.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me address your points nonetheless:

a. You are wrong- No I am not. What opposing views Indians (billions of them) hold is not subject to WP:RS, and is an integral part of WP:NPOV. The discussions in above sections over the preceding twenty years in themselves should be sufficient to satisfy to you or anybody else that this is a very contentious thing to say. I am surprised you have made this argument and are so dismissive. There is a Whole section in the article, called Contoversies that delves on these PoVs and why these are contentious.

b. INA being a collaborator (PUPPET would apply to Provisional governement of free India]] is covered in the very introductory section, this is not a matter of fact but a matter of perception as explained above, and in the books and articles quoted in the previous versions of the article. You have thrown out sentences to support your POV using sentences from somewhat related books and encyclopaedias (WP:RS tertiary source) to support a POV, whilst ignoring a detailed and in-depth version provided in the article from books and resources delving on the subject itself. It's a bit like teaching making curry to an Indian using a British cookbook. Moreover, and belabouring the point There is a Whole section in the article, called Contoversies that delves on these PoVs and why these are contentious. Additionally, amongst the books you have used, |"An alternate History..."??? Are you serious???

c. The hoax regarding Clement Atlee and INA is a very well known "comment" widely discussed in India as you will see from reliable sources. Whether true or not is not for your me to decide, that would make this original research, wikipedia is not the grounds for this. I am curious nonetheless how you know of my input into a debate nearly eight years previously? Have you (under a different username perhaps) and I interacted before?

I will also add, the Short description is factually inaccurate (this iwhat gives the POV game away), as majority of the soldiers were not British Indian Army POW, but in fact Indian civillians from south-east Asia, again explained in detail in the article. The POV bias to describe the unit as collaborators has blinded the editors to this and overall degraded the article to a POV and poor shell of what it was in 2007. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what some people believe. What really matters is the information from the reliable sources which you are clearly ignoring. The book, "The Alternate History of how the Japanese Won the Pacific War", you are targeting comes from Greenhill Books which is a quality military history publisher. Azuredivay (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Rueben_lys, you simply don't understand what is WP:RS and what is WP:V.
 * Some Indians also believe that Nathuram Godse was a great man but Wikipedia cannot say that. Similarly, you are not supposed to hide behind snide POV of some Indians by removing the reliably sourced facts and then say "but some Indians don't believe this". Your attempts to sideline the description of INA as puppet or collaborators by calling it a "British POV" despite the reliable sources that I mentioned above is also disruptive.
 * Your hoax about Clement Attlee has been debunked elsewhere by WP:RS. If you are unwilling to use common sense then at least you should read what is WP:RS. You are using horrible sources to push this hoax even when you have been told before to stop adding about it. Orientls (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

After having been in Wikipedia for nearly twenty years, I would hope I understand WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with NPOV. If a large enough number of Indians believe Nathuram Godse to be a goodman, NPOV would dictate that that POV is incorporated into an article about him. The POV of some Indians is not "snide" (and betrays the strong POV you are trying to bring up), and it is not your role to judge that. The description of the POV of INA as collabroators is not fact, it is a POV. Greenhill publishers or not, "Alternate history" is not history. My "horrible sources" are history books written on the topic by widely acclaimed historians. I know because I wrote this article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you really believe you are so correct then why are you not addressing the problems with your edits? You are promoting a hoax and whitewashing this subject. You are doing no favor for yourself by ridiculing one source which comes from military historian Peter G. Tsouras. There is a universal consensus over INA about them being Japanese collaborators. You don't get to WP:OWN this article just because you edited this article years ago. Orientls (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)