What if Japan invades India in 1942?

[Mostlyharmless]

This is almost ASB because the IJA will not release the troops and the IJN didn't want to turn away from the USN. Further both were absolutely right. Japan would not have gained very much from even the most successful invasion imaginable. Thus this does not belong in a "How can Japan do better" thread. However it does belong in a "How can the British do worse" thread because a Japanese invasion of India might have caused much of the British Army in India to change sides and if India falls, it will be very hard to recapture.

Thus my question assumes some sort on Pan Asian craziness from the Japanese and some initial success. I am guessing that initial success would lead to a complete collapse of British India and thus that the British are faced with a hostile India under Bose when Japan surrenders.

Is this likely and what are the consequences?

 

[CalBear]

I don't think that most, or even a noticeable minority, of the Indian Army would rebel. If the IJA had tried India they would have gotten fed their lungs. The IJA simply wasn't up to fighting a modern force in the open or on the offensive.

It would, however, have been an issue for the British since it would reduce the forces that can be sent to the Western Desert.

 

[Keenir]

I don't think that most, or even a noticeable minority, of the Indian Army would rebel. If the IJA had tried India they would have gotten fed their lungs. The IJA simply wasn't up to fighting a modern force in the open or on the offensive.

It would, however, have been an issue for the British since it would reduce the forces that can be sent to the Western Desert.

so...both sides lose?

 

[lothaw]

Unless, Japan can broker a deal with Chiang to free up some troops, I don't think they'd be able to pull this off in any amount of force anyways.

 

[Astrodragon]

Even if the army frees up the troops, how are they going to get there?
The Indian army (particularly the Sikh formations) isnt going to mitiny. Now the Japanese have to feed an army through the Burmese infrastructure (!!), to engage an enemy in open terrain with internal (and pretty good) logistic lines. And probably decent tanks, there are plenty of tanks closeby in NA not really up to facing the Germans but perfectly capable of tearing a Japanese division apart in anything other than jungle.
Epic fail.

 

[Rubicon]

This is almost ASB because the IJA will not release the troops and the IJN didn't want to turn away from the USN. Further both were absolutely right. Japan would not have gained very much from even the most successful invasion imaginable. Thus this does not belong in a "How can Japan do better" thread. However it does belong in a "How can the British do worse" thread because a Japanese invasion of India might have caused much of the British Army in India to change sides and if India falls, it will be very hard to recapture.

Thus my question assumes some sort on Pan Asian craziness from the Japanese and some initial success. I am guessing that initial success would lead to a complete collapse of British India and thus that the British are faced with a hostile India under Bose when Japan surrenders.

Is this likely and what are the consequences?

Learn the three 'L's, Logistics, Logistics and more Logisitics. There were no roads or railroads going from Burma to India, only narrow trails unable to support the amount of supplies needed to successfully invade India from Burma (and vice versa), when Slim's army invaded Burma in -45 it did so supplied from the air. The Japanese lacked this capability in -42.

Any Japanese invasion of India from Burma in -42 would only have given the British a much needed victory and morale boost.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

Even if the army frees up the troops, how are they going to get there?
The Indian army (particularly the Sikh formations) isnt going to mitiny. Now the Japanese have to feed an army through the Burmese infrastructure (!!), to engage an enemy in open terrain with internal (and pretty good) logistic lines. And probably decent tanks, there are plenty of tanks closeby in NA not really up to facing the Germans but perfectly capable of tearing a Japanese division apart in anything other than jungle.
Epic fail.

Many British officers believed that their Indian troops were loyal and that perception colours later history. However, many British officers commanding Burmese troops in 1942 also believed them loyal. In fact, Burmese forces almost all joined the Japanese (at least Burmese rather than Karens etc.). Indian forces were quite likely to mutiny in March - May 1942 if they believed that they could join the Japanese as shown by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Christmas_Island and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_Islands_Mutiny.

My plan would have been for the Indian Ocean raid of early April 1942 to have been a larger expedition with SNLF forces (similar to the OTL Midway landing force) taking Addu Atol. That would have forced a battle in which it is quite likely that Somerville's fleet would have been destroyed. India would be cut off from reinforcements and fuel, with some effect on morale. There would also be air attacks against Ceylon. OTL two raids from the carriers destroyed a large fraction of the aircraft deployed there.

As soon as possible and certain by early May, a force similar in size to the Java invasion force would be landed somewhere South-East of Calcutta (I am slightly attracted to Kakinada, then called Cocanada, but reconnaissance may suggested how best to avoid British defences). The invasion force might use the 2nd and 48th divisions used in Java but there were plenty of men in Manchuria if the IJA assumes nothing will happen there before autumn. If necessary one or two extra divisions can be moved from Burma to reinforce the landing and INA forces should be landed as soon as possible. I don't believe that British troops in India would have been any more successful than those in Malaya or Burma, especially as the best three divisions had been moved to Ceylon as that was felt to be most threatened.

If the Indian mainland falls, I assume that a final landing will attack Ceylon. That would be tougher and I am not sure whether it will be easy to invade before the Americans feel strong enough to start landings in the Pacific.

 

[Flocculencio]

This is almost ASB because the IJA will not release the troops and the IJN didn't want to turn away from the USN. Further both were absolutely right. Japan would not have gained very much from even the most successful invasion imaginable. Thus this does not belong in a "How can Japan do better" thread. However it does belong in a "How can the British do worse" thread because a Japanese invasion of India might have caused much of the British Army in India to change sides and if India falls, it will be very hard to recapture.

Thus my question assumes some sort on Pan Asian craziness from the Japanese and some initial success. I am guessing that initial success would lead to a complete collapse of British India and thus that the British are faced with a hostile India under Bose when Japan surrenders.

Is this likely and what are the consequences?

The main problem with this is that it was all very well for Bose to get support from Indian nationalists so long as he was outside India. If Japanese troops are raping and murdering their way through Bengal, Bose will lose all credibility and support will swing to Congress who were in favour of working with the British to defeat the immediate threat.

 

[Flocculencio]

Many British officers believed that their Indian troops were loyal and that perception colours later history. However, many British officers commanding Burmese troops in 1942 also believed them loyal. In fact, Burmese forces almost all joined the Japanese (at least Burmese rather than Karens etc.). Indian forces were quite likely to mutiny in March - May 1942 if they believed that they could join the Japanese as shown by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Christmas_Island and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocos_Islands_Mutiny.

My plan would have been for the Indian Ocean raid of early April 1942 to have been a larger expedition with SNLF forces (similar to the OTL Midway landing force) taking Addu Atol. That would have forced a battle in which it is quite likely that Somerville's fleet would have been destroyed. India would be cut off from reinforcements and fuel, with some effect on morale. There would also be air attacks against Ceylon. OTL two raids from the carriers destroyed a large fraction of the aircraft deployed there.

As soon as possible and certain by early May, a force similar in size to the Java invasion force would be landed somewhere South-East of Calcutta (I am slightly attracted to Kakinada, then called Cocanada, but reconnaissance may suggested how best to avoid British defences). The invasion force might use the 2nd and 48th divisions used in Java but there were plenty of men in Manchuria if the IJA assumes nothing will happen there before autumn. If necessary one or two extra divisions can be moved from Burma to reinforce the landing and INA forces should be landed as soon as possible. I don't believe that British troops in India would have been any more successful than those in Malaya or Burma, especially as the best three divisions had been moved to Ceylon as that was felt to be most threatened.

If the Indian mainland falls, I assume that a final landing will attack Ceylon. That would be tougher and I am not sure whether it will be easy to invade before the Americans feel strong enough to start landings in the Pacific.

How does Japan magically occupy India given the logistical constraints?

 

[Rubicon]

My plan would have been for the Indian Ocean raid of early April 1942 to have been a larger expedition with SNLF forces (similar to the OTL Midway landing force) taking Addu Atol. That would have forced a battle in which it is quite likely that Somerville's fleet would have been destroyed. India would be cut off from reinforcements and fuel, with some effect on morale. There would also be air attacks against Ceylon. OTL two raids from the carriers destroyed a large fraction of the aircraft deployed there.

To few troops to take Ceyon, there was about a divisions worth of British and Indian troops on Ceylon alone none of which had been involved in the Burma debacle. You need at least a regular army division to take Ceylon. The Addu atol the Japanese could take but not hold or build up into anything close to a viable base to use as a springboard to conquer the mainland for two reasons. 1) It is to damn small, it was only used as an a secret anchorage by the Eastern fleet without anything close to proper base facilities.
2) L, L, L. Addu will be on the long end of a very long SLOC with a still functionable Ceylon between it and the rest of Japan. It would be like invading Italy from Pantelleria without taking Sicily or North Africa first.

As soon as possible and certain by early May, a force similar in size to the Java invasion force would be landed somewhere South-East of Calcutta (I am slightly attracted to Kakinada, then called Cocanada, but reconnaissance may suggested how best to avoid British defences). The invasion force might use the 2nd and 48th divisions used in Java but there were plenty of men in Manchuria if the IJA assumes nothing will happen there before autumn. If necessary one or two extra divisions can be moved from Burma to reinforce the landing and INA forces should be landed as soon as possible. I don't believe that British troops in India would have been any more successful than those in Malaya or Burma, especially as the best three divisions had been moved to Ceylon as that was felt to be most threatened.

To few troops to take India, there were actually a shitload of troops in India not involved in either Burma, Malaya or Eastern India. A division in Northern India (Todays Pakistan near the border against Afghanistan) a division at Bombay another at Division at Madras a brigade at Karachi, another at Calcutta about four brigades worth of armoured formations (though mostly with obsolete equipment) spread out throughout India as well as about three divisions worth of troops that retreated from Burma. This doesn't count the numerous smaller formations (mostly battalions) on garrision duties throughout the sub-continent.

If the Indian mainland falls, I assume that a final landing will attack Ceylon. That would be tougher and I am not sure whether it will be easy to invade before the Americans feel strong enough to start landings in the Pacific.

To take India by amphibious invasion you must first take Ceylon (easier said then done) which means about two divisions worth of troops are needed one of which will have to remain behind as garrison. Ceylon will then be the springboard to the mainland, problem is that the British will know that an invasion is imminent and that Ceylon has a very vulnerable SLOC. Time taken from conquest of Ceylon before it can be fully utilized ? I'll be generous and say a month, but more likely two and maybe even three. During which time Nihon Kaigun will have to stop any attempts by the British to both reinforce the mainland as well as protect their SLOC.

Japan will need IMHO to devote at least eight divisions worth of troops to have a chance of taking India not to mention the full Kido Butai. Even then I wouldn't bet on Japan.
Would the Japanese high command agree to release some divisions from the Kwantung Army? Not without a very good reason. To be used in a daring amphibious invasion on the Indian mainland with the Royal Navy still intact as well as give the Americans some time to go on the offensive? Which they will as the British will be screaming for any kind of diversion.

Yes the Japanese will most likely get ashore on the mainland if they try, but their SLOC will be long and very vulnerable, it will face ever increasing resistance from more and more British and Indian troops pulled from the North and from North Africa, for instance the AIF 6th and 7th divisions will be diverted to India (was originally sent back to Australia and later New Guinea). Can the Kido Butai guard the entire Indian Ocean against British reinforcment of India? While at the same time guarding their SLOC against any raids from British, Australian or American attacks on it?

If you can pull off writing a plausible story encompassing all of the above mentioned difficulties I will applaud you. Just remember the three L's, which usually are the reason why some things weren't tried in real life. Like a Japanese invasion of Australia, Hawaii or India.

 

[Jukra]

How does Japan magically occupy India given the logistical constraints?

How does India occupy India given the logistical constraints? The only way for Japan to win is to have an Indian insurrection. Then again, actually allying with someone might be out of the intellectual reach of early 1940's Japanese leadership. With PR skills of IJA and IJN this would probably end up in a disaster. Removing India from the Allied war effort, even by just making the country neutral instead of a participant, would finish Chinese campaign in short order. Then again, even this would not ultimately help against growing US might.

 

[nimbletoes]

The main problem with the Japanese trying to invade India, IMO, is that the behaviour of the Japanese during the war was utterly savage and murderous. So much so that people who had started out supporting the Japanese (because they were getting rid of the colonial masters) soon realised that the Japanese were only interested in what they could get. TBH, the Japanese were totally disinterested in helping anybody but themselves during WW2. For them the war was essentially just a vast territorial grab, and an attempt to set up their own empire in the Far East, which they could then use as a source of raw materials to support and feed the home economy of Japan.

 

[Ak-84]

Chances of Indian Army supporting the Japanese are about zero.zero.

 

[Ak-84]

In fact even claiming that it could happen on a large scale shows how little if anything the poster knows about the British Indian Army. This was (and its successors are) a professional army, the men served 14-18 years and were given benefits after retirement. The loyalty of the average soldier was to his regiment (still is the case in the successor armies) and for there to be a large scale mutiny you need to see a sea change in the whole culture of British Indian Army.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

It would be like invading Italy from Pantelleria without taking Sicily or North Africa first.

The idea of taking Addu Atoll is to base flying boats there (H6Ks) to find any ships sailing to India. As the British Fleet was there OTL, there will be a battle and it is likely that most of the British Eastern Fleet will not play any further part in the conflict. Clearly, the IJN needs subsequently to leave sufficient forces in the region to destroy any ships located by aerial reconnaissance.

...there were actually a shitload of troops in India not involved in either Burma, Malaya or Eastern India.

Two Japanese divisions, should be able to defeat any force that could move against them quickly (note that Slim and his army are still retreating from Burma and only reached India in May). It helps that Irwin was later shown to be a poor general.

To take India by amphibious invasion you must first take Ceylon ...

You need to destroy the aircraft on Ceylon and prevent any replacements arriving. Ideally, the IJN would like to stop submarines operating from Ceylon but I don't think that the RN had many present over April - May 1942. Air attack on oil tanks and stores may hinder them.

Yes the Japanese will most likely get ashore on the mainland if they try, but their SLOC will be long and very vulnerable, it will face ever increasing resistance from more and more British and Indian troops pulled from the North and from North Africa, for instance the AIF 6th and 7th divisions will be diverted to India (was originally sent back to Australia and later New Guinea). Can the Kido Butai guard the entire Indian Ocean against British reinforcment of India? While at the same time guarding their SLOC against any raids from British, Australian or American attacks on it?

If the main British Fleet is sunk, no reinforcements will arrive until a new fleet, RN or USN, is sent. The IJN can also send submarine towards Madagascar to put another barrier in front of the aircraft from Addu.

As a minor point, the Australian Government was insisting that their army was needed to defend Australia, so even if a convoy could have evaded the IJN, no Australians will be sent

In fact even claiming that it could happen on a large scale shows how little if anything the poster knows about the British Indian Army. This was (and its successors are) a professional army, the men served 14-18 years and were given benefits after retirement.

Certainly I am no expert! However, it would be quite difficult to find an expert on the Indian army's views in 1942. Even the files of the British security services might be insufficient if they still existed. The problem is that by 1944, the Indian Army was loyal. However, the British had worked hard to achieve this, for example, reporting Japanese atrocities to Indian troops as well as trying improve relations between British officers and Indian troops. Thus asking former soldiers may not reveal how they felt in 1942 because they will have adjusted their memory.

We know much more about politicians and their supporters. The British were a little more popular than bubonic plague in India in 1942 and a few politicians, such as MN Roy, supported the war effort (despite having been locked up in the thirties). Nehru and Azad argued within Congress for giving the British limited support but eventually decided to accepted the "Quit India Resolution". Politicians are normally sensitive to their supporters views, so I think that we can assume that those two were reacting to overwhelming anti-British feelings amongst Congress supporters. Nehru was imprisoned from August 1942 to June 1945. Others, such as Jayaprakash Narayan tried to organise a guerilla war. The Muslim League naturally opposed Congress.

That leaves the question of how different the views of Indian soldiers were from civilians. The Indian Army expanded from 205,000 in 1939 to 2.5 million in 1944. As the best trained units were sent to North Africa and the Middle East first, we can assume significant dilution of the long service professionals in India by 1942 (although less at more senior levels). The British did not recruit evenly over India, preferring the groups who had supported them in 1857. However, the Sikhs, at least, proved strongly attracted by the INA under Mohan Singh.

Apart from the two mutinies mentioned earlier, the other obvious fact is that 40,000 out of 55,000 Indian prisoners in Malaya joined the INA. Unfortunately, I don't know which view that supports. Should I say that 15,000 heroes were so loyal to Britain that they accepted forced labour under the Japanese rather than taking the apparently easier option?

I think it is an open question what would have occurred after an initial Japanese victory in India in May 1942 but if mutinies started, I suspect that India could fall at the speed of rumour. Clearly the British would have had much less time to arrest possible rebels and everyone would have had to decide where their loyalties lay very quickly. I imagine that it would be very important if the Japanese managed to land some INA troops within the first month because that news would probably be the main rumour spreading ahead. Even if the INA troops are poorly equipped and trained for battle, they could be sent to carry out sabotage deep behind British lines.

 

[Flocculencio]

Certainly I am no expert! However, it would be quite difficult to find an expert on the Indian army's views in 1942. Even the files of the British security services might be insufficient if they still existed. The problem is that by 1944, the Indian Army was loyal. However, the British had worked hard to achieve this, for example, reporting Japanese atrocities to Indian troops as well as trying improve relations between British officers and Indian troops. Thus asking former soldiers may not reveal how they felt in 1942 because they will have adjusted their memory.

And surely an actual Japanese invasion will bring this home to the troops as quickly as possible. If the town of Assam and East Bengal are being raped that's going to galvanise the rest of India.

 

[Atreus]

Can somebody explain to me how the Japanese are able to logistically support this action? The invasion isn't coming through Burma. Even if, say, the Japanese are victorious at Imphal, that doesn;t make an invasion by land feasible. No rail connections, no roads, no real infrastructure of the sort necessary to support an invasion of India. As for coming by sea, the fact is that the Japanese lacked the ability to do this. Invading india would require, at the very least, multiple infantry divisions unavailable to the japanese planners. It would require the diversion of the Kido Butai, in more or less full strength, to support the invasion. it would probably require the reduction of Sri lanka, which requires at the least another full division. And it requires more transport and sealift capability than the Japanese had available, if they wanted to maintain the pretense of a functioning empire.

 

[Rubicon]

The idea of taking Addu Atoll is to base flying boats there (H6Ks) to find any ships sailing to India. As the British Fleet was there OTL, there will be a battle and it is likely that most of the British Eastern Fleet will not play any further part in the conflict. Clearly, the IJN needs subsequently to leave sufficient forces in the region to destroy any ships located by aerial reconnaissance.

Sorry but the Mavis doesn't have the range to cover all they way up to Karachi and Aden from the Addu atoll. Britian can sneak in reinforcements along the coast.

And where would you base the IJN surface forces that are supposed to intercept the British reinforcments? The Addu atoll was an anchorage, not a base. Not to mention quite a long way away from the Arabian coast.

And the British Eastern fleet wasn't at the Addu atoll it had rebased to Mombasa in Kenya the moment it heard about the raid into the Indian Ocean in OTL, why wouldn't they do so this time?

BTW what are sufficent IJN forces to deal with the Royal Navy? I have no doubt that Churchill would send the Med fleet to push through Reinforcements from Aden.

Two Japanese divisions, should be able to defeat any force that could move against them quickly (note that Slim and his army are still retreating from Burma and only reached India in May). It helps that Irwin was later shown to be a poor general.

Two divisions ? To defeat eight divisions and four armoured brigades. None of which were involved in Burma, and do so in something the size of India, and in such a short time that the Burma troops will be of no consequense? What are you smoking? And can I have some please?

You need to destroy the aircraft on Ceylon and prevent any replacements arriving. Ideally, the IJN would like to stop submarines operating from Ceylon but I don't think that the RN had many present over April - May 1942. Air attack on oil tanks and stores may hinder them.

Neutralizing Ceylon.... without ground forces ?..... and with only carrier based aircrafts? .....When every naval pilot the Japanese lose is irreplacable? Good plan.

How do you plan on stopping any replacement aircrafts from arriving to Ceylon? It is quite short distance from the mainland to Ceylon. Easily short enough for say swordfish planes to fly.

Not to mention that the British doesn't need the airbases on Ceylon to stop the resupply to an Japanese invasion, they can do so from the airbases in southern India.

The RN had two submarines in India HMS Trusty and HMS Truant at this point. Problem is though that there is another thirty in the Med. Which isn't that far away. Then there are the Dutch subs that survived the fall of the DEI: KXI, KXII, KXIV, KXV, O19 and O21. Enough to be a real bother to the Japanese supply lines, particulary when taking into account the atrocious Japanese ASW technices and tactics.
Even if you neutralize Ceylon, those Subs can sail from Madras or Calcutta.

If the main British Fleet is sunk, no reinforcements will arrive until a new fleet, RN or USN, is sent. The IJN can also send submarine towards Madagascar to put another barrier in front of the aircraft from Addu.

The Main British fleet is in Great Britain, but I suppose you mean if the Eastern Fleet is sunk. Quite a long way to sail from Singapore to Kenya and back again don't you think? And even if the Eastern Fleet becomes stupid and behaves completely against the way it did IRL and gets sunk, then it's really far to sail from Alexandria for the Royal Navy, oh wait no it isn't.

As a minor point, the Australian Government was insisting that their army was needed to defend Australia, so even if a convoy could have evaded the IJN, no Australians will be sent

And you don't think that due to the circumstances that the Australian government would consent to sent the 6th and 7th AIF divisions to India instead? Particulary if the USA commits to the defense of Australia and Port Moresby? Something they did IRL, just not that early.


More importantly you still haven't adresed the Logistical issues, the Japanese still have a very long and very vulnerable SLOC.

Nor have you IMO allocated sufficent forces to take India. They will get ashore, but not much more then that. No two divisions alive could take India, it is folly. Eight, and you have a fighting chance if you can supply them. Six is absolutely bare minimum, but then you will not progress far before your lines gets streched extremly thin.

Trust me, there is absolutely no other way for Japan to take India then by first taking Ceylon, and rebase IJA aircrafts to the Island to support an invasion. Even then it will be extremly hard to take India since the British can resupply and reinforce India from Aden and fuel from Abaddan, something the Japanese will have a hard time stopping.

 

[Jukra]

The RN had two submarines in India HMS Trusty and HMS Truant at this point. Problem is though that there is another thirty in the Med. Which isn't that far away. Then there are the Dutch subs that survived the fall of the DEI: KXI, KXII, KXIV, KXV, O19 and O21. Enough to be a real bother to the Japanese supply lines, particulary when taking into account the atrocious Japanese ASW technices and tactics.
Even if you neutralize Ceylon, those Subs can sail from Madras or Calcutta.

Thirty submarines (many of which will be short-legged U's and S's) will not be much for Indian Ocean, and if they're missing from the Mediterranean this might have some consequences for Axis forces in North Africa. The British cannot be everywhere at once.

EDIT:

If I count correctly, the total British submarine force in May 1942 was as follows:

2 River
3 O's
4 P611
4 S's
13 T's
12 U's

for a total of some 38 boats, some of which will be undoubtely be in training or repairs and not all can be taken away from the Atlantic and the Med.

Trust me, there is absolutely no other way for Japan to take India then by first taking Ceylon, and rebase IJA aircrafts to the Island to support an invasion. Even then it will be extremly hard to take India since the British can resupply and reinforce India from Aden and fuel from Abaddan, something the Japanese will have a hard time stopping.

Any Japanese invasion of India is fought and lost on the issue whether Japan can provoke Indian Army to fight the British or act passively. If Indian Army fights, Japanese invasion has no chance of succeeding. If it does not, Japan succeeds. Whether or not Japan engages in RTS-game style base building is of no consequences.

And I think the goal is not the occupation of India but rather getting India to stop supporting Allied war effort.

By the way, how about larger scale repercussions: With less RN in the Atlantic the Arctic convoys will be probably cancelled. The amount of shipping available to ship aid to Iran will probably be reduced. Smaller naval participation in the Med will easen up Axis position. These repercussions will happen if the British merely believe an invasion attempt is at sight.

 

[Flocculencio]

Any Japanese invasion of India is fought and lost on the issue whether Japan can provoke Indian Army to fight the British or act passively. If Indian Army fights, Japanese invasion has no chance of succeeding. If it does not, Japan succeeds. Whether or not Japan engages in RTS-game style base building is of no consequences.

And I think the goal is not the occupation of India but rather getting India to stop supporting Allied war effort.

You still haven't explained just how Japan is going to do this. The IJA excelled at some things but winning hearts and minds wasn't one of them. IOTL with India pretty much untouched by the Japanese and Subhas Chandra Bose's propaganda effort going all out support for the Indian National Army was never really more than lukewarm. ITTL with Japanese troops performing their rape-and-murder SOP in India just as they did in Malaya and Indonesia and China and Burma one suspects that actually getting India to stop supporting the Allied war effort is going to be a little bit harder.

I think it's a bit ASB to try to have the Japanese suddenly turn their SOP around and be all sweetness and light to the locals. This is a bit hard to do when you have an army based on fear and brutalization from higher ranks down to enlisted men and then to civilians.