What if the Indian Army revolts during WWII

Troops within the Indian Army were generally rather wary of the professional politicians of the Congress Party and the Muslim League. So the opinion of said politicians wouldn't really (and didn't) effect troop morale. The way the Japanese treated their INA allies and the torture that befell those who refused to join convinced a good deal of the original defectors to return to the allied side. Hunger at home and the erosion of the image of British military might were the two main factors in cases of insubordination and grumbling within the ranks.

IIRC the Azad Hind Fauj was composed mainly of volunteer indian POWs.

I can only see a ucessful indian revolt if there is no Ghandi led peacful indeopendence movement.

It was composed by volunteers, but their numbers were relatively small and not really trusted or respected by their Japanese handlers. Although an increase in INA numbers frightened the Raj government in Delhi, the threat of saboteurs trained and equipped by the Germans through Afghanistan (if the German Army Group A had managed to swing into Central Asia from their foothold in the Caucasus) was even more worrying, IIRC.

The only reason Gandhi was allowed to say what he was saying for so long, was because of his relatively coherent demand for peaceful non-cooperation. You'd need a pretty early and major PoD for the Mahatma to embrace violence. Maybe a different experience in the Boer War or another way for him to analyse the Bhagava Ghita. Gandhi really can't be completely eliminated from the equation of the Congress push for independence, because he seemingly was the only one to understand that the struggle for Puna Swaraj had to originate in the rural villages of the subcontinent - and not in the fancy dining rooms of Bombay lawyers.

The more interesting scenario would be:

britain sees that its reign in India is doomend and decides to trade "fully indian war support" for "free" india 5 years after end of hostilities. This would enable britain to bring enough troops to europe to blast the nazis no later than 1942... (= indian independence 1947 - wait that date has some ring to it ;))
Britain had understood (well, everybody but Winston Churchill) that after the sweeping victories of the Axis, India would have to be granted satisfaction on the Home Rule/independence issue in the event of war. Congress had at first supported the war, so Britain really did not need to promise anything really. However, the INC decided to escalate the issue by demanding complete independence in 1942 when German and especially Japanese campaigns were still causing major concern in both Delhi and London. Which of course was completely unacceptable to the Raj.

With a enormous size totalling more than 2.5 million troops at the end of hostilities, the British Indian Army was a massive thing, but in 1939 it numbered only some 200,000. However, to bring these men away from India and to Europe is an entirely different thing.
 
Last edited:
1) Shouldn't this be in another section?

2) Depending on his elimination, it's not likely that a dead Gandhi is going to change that much. His execution itself seems even more unlikely. Hitler had advised Lord Halifax (or some other official, maybe Linlithgow) to shoot Gandhi and keep on shooting Congress bosses until the British had restored order throughout India. Halifax was shocked and appalled. Not even when Gandhi and Congress knowingly and willingly attempted to wreak havoc to the Indian war effort in 1942 did their leaders face firing squads.

3) The Indian Army in both of the World Wars was a volunteer force. Things would have to go very, very badly for the Brits/Allies in Burma for a revolt to take place. A far worse and far more incompetently handled series of famines disrupting the morale of Indian troops coupled with military defeats could see a bigger swing of defectors to the Indian National Army. But then again... its size and efficiency were both more often than not enlarged by frightened British intelligence officers (the 1857 syndrome) so any real difference wouldn't be that tangible, IMHO.
There is a good space for Gandhi to die in OTL, that I used for my timeline. After being imprisoned by the British in 1921, Gandhi contacted appendicitis and was released to be treated. Have him not be released or die earlier of the infection and you get no Gandhi after 1923. Although I would say that the procession of Indian history would be radically changed by such a POD, even with a butterfly net keeping it in Subcontinent.
 
There is a good space for Gandhi to die in OTL, that I used for my timeline. After being imprisoned by the British in 1921, Gandhi contacted appendicitis and was released to be treated. Have him not be released or die earlier of the infection and you get no Gandhi after 1923. Although I would say that the procession of Indian history would be radically changed by such a POD, even with a butterfly net keeping it in Subcontinent.

Indeed. Gandhi established himself pretty early on as the heart and soul of Congress. With him gone, who would Nehru turn to? Maybe Bose, the self-imagined Indian "Man of Destiny", whose militant flirt with authoritarian socialism in the 30s might swing the Fabian-esque mind of Jawaharlal. Gandhi was himself rather distrusting of Bose and tried very much to keep him outside of influence within the party. However, an aggravated and aggressive INC who subscribe to armed struggle would be an immensively easier entity for the British to deal with. Maybe they'd end as the Gadr Party - emasculated, ridiculed and isolated.
 
Indeed. Gandhi established himself pretty early on as the heart and soul of Congress. With him gone, who would Nehru turn to? Maybe Bose, the self-imagined Indian "Man of Destiny", whose militant flirt with authoritarian socialism in the 30s might swing the Fabian-esque mind of Jawaharlal. Gandhi was himself rather distrusting of Bose and tried very much to keep him outside of influence within the party. However, an aggravated and aggressive INC who subscribe to armed struggle would be an immensively easier entity for the British to deal with. Maybe they'd end as the Gadr Party - emasculated, ridiculed and isolated.

In my timeline, without Gandhi, Nehru is forced to coopt the Independence movement with the growing Communist movement. Dange is actually a major player. Jinanh goes his own way, and Pakistan ends up being independent earlier, as a dominion, including Hyderabad.
 

elkarlo

Banned
The Japanese never EVER had a chance to invade and occupy India, and this doesn't change that.


Of course not.

but as for what the British would do, would be interesting. Esp, how big and widespread is the revolt?
 
Now here is a question to the OP, would a mutiny by Indian Army members work? They were mostly used for operations within Asia, but in 1940 they were sent to Egypt. It is possible that they could have mutinied in Egypt, but I don't see any reason as to why they would, unless they had some INA infiltrators.
 
In my timeline, without Gandhi, Nehru is forced to coopt the Independence movement with the growing Communist movement. Dange is actually a major player. Jinanh goes his own way, and Pakistan ends up being independent earlier, as a dominion, including Hyderabad.
Well, Dange was quite a minor personality in the dramatis personae of the independence struggle. My bet would be that without Gandhi, congress remains a far less potent force thus affecting support for the Muslim League directly. Jinnah always feared Congress and dreaded that a post British India headed by a joint Muslim-Hindu INC would equal a Hindu Raj. Osman Ali Khan, the Nizam of Hyderabad actually dreamed of an independent domain - separate from both India and Pakistan. Who knows, maybe the British maxim of the Three Indias (Muslim, Hindu and Princely) would actually come to bear fruit.
Now here is a question to the OP, would a mutiny by Indian Army members work? They were mostly used for operations within Asia, but in 1940 they were sent to Egypt. It is possible that they could have mutinied in Egypt, but I don't see any reason as to why they would, unless they had some INA infiltrators.
Which would mean that Indian troops would have to desert from the Anglo-Indian army, join the INA in Burma, defect back to the British and hope for transfer to North Africa.
 
Well, Dange was quite a minor personality in the dramatis personae of the independence struggle. My bet would be that without Gandhi, congress remains a far less potent force thus affecting support for the Muslim League directly. Jinnah always feared Congress and dreaded that a post British India headed by a joint Muslim-Hindu INC would equal a Hindu Raj. Osman Ali Khan, the Nizam of Hyderabad actually dreamed of an independent domain - separate from both India and Pakistan. Who knows, maybe the British maxim of the Three Indias (Muslim, Hindu and Princely) would actually come to bear fruit.

Oh yes, I'm aware of the Communist Party's relative obscurity, but due to the mass of butterflies in this timeline, they are able to gain a lot more traction. Dange himself has to flee to Russia, ala OTL, but the CPI end up becoming a major force, opposing the remnants of the INC, who merge with the Ghadar's to form a purely Republican platform. As for the wishes of the Nizam, the Tories make it clear that Pakistan is the only option, and that any potential for independence will come after integration into the Pakistani Dominion.

Also just for fun, I set up a white minority ruled state in Burma, headed by ATL George Orwell. :D
 
Top