The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday,
April 04, 2017.
The Central
Information Commission felt that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is under an
obligation to explain the logic or reason in neglecting the members of INA led
by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and rejecting them the status of freedom fighters.
The Commission directed the office of MHA to provide answers.
An
interesting and very significant issue was raised by Pradyot in a request for
information under RTI Act. He sought information as to whether the members of
Indian National Army, the British Indian Army personnel who participated in
World War-II and captured by opposition forces, are freedom fighters or not,
the official status of Indian National Army veterans as freedom fighters or
army deserters, and, if so, the reason for such decision to be declared under
Section 4 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005, co-terminus staff employed in the
Secretariat under the respondent authority, policy/guidelines with regard to dealing
of letter/complaint received from common citizen/public that is necessary to be
disseminated under Section 4(1)(b),(c) of RTI Act, 2005, policy/guidelines or
procedure adopted by public authority pertaining to records to maintained by
the public authority, functioning and decision-making process of the public
authority, etc.
The
information sought was about the government’s policy/acts regarding the members
of the INA (Indian National Army) led by Subhash Chandra Bose and their
official status, certain clarifications on the action taken by the Government
of independent India for the revocation of the social stigma attached to the
INA veterans and a list of the INA veterans whose names have not been cleared
by the government from being called army deserters.
PIO
transferred the RTI application to CPIO, Ministry of Defence, which was further
transferred to Department of Ex-Serviceman Welfare and finally to Ministry of
Home Affairs. CPIO, National Archives of India, after receiving the RTI
application, replied to the appellant on 17.12.2014, offering inspection in
National Archives of India and cull out the desired information and documents.
Dissatisfied by non-response, he approached the Information Commission.
Undoubtedly,
the Indian National Army led by Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose is a significant
part of Indian independence struggle. The Wikipedia collected the following
information about the INA and its saga in fighting British forces:
“Initially
the Indian National Army was formed in December 1941. It was disbanded in
December 1942 after disagreements between the Hikari Kikan and Mohan Singh, who
came to believe that the Japanese High Command was using the INA as a mere pawn
and propaganda tool. However, the idea of an independence army was revived with
the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose in the Far East in 1943. Bose was able to
reorganise the fledgling army and organise massive support among the expatriate
Indian population in south-east Asia.
INA had a
separate women's unit, the Rani of Jhansi Regiment (named after Rani Lakshmi
Bai) headed by Capt Lakshmi Swaminathan, which is seen as the first of its kind
in Asia… Even when faced with military reverses, Bose was able to maintain
support for the Azad Hind movement. Spoken as a part of a motivational speech
for the Indian National Army at a rally of Indians in Burma on 4 July 1944,
Bose's most famous quote was ‘Give me blood, and I shall give you freedom!’
In this, he
urged the people of India to join him in his fight against the British
Raj. Spoken in Hindi, Bose's words are
highly evocative. The troops of the INA were under the aegis of a provisional
government, the Azad Hind Government, which came to produce its own currency,
postage stamps, court and civil code, and was recognised by nine Axis
states—Germany, Japan, Italy, the Independent State of Croatia, Wang Jingwei
regime in Nanjing, China, a provisional government of Burma, Manchukuo and
Japanese-controlled Philippines. Recent researches have shown that the USSR too
had diplomatic contact with the "Provisional Government of Free
India." Of those countries, five were authorities established under Axis
occupation. This government participated in the so-called Greater East Asia
Conference as an observer in November 1943…”
The INA's
first commitment was in the Japanese thrust towards Eastern Indian frontiers of
Manipur. INA's special forces, the Bahadur Group, were extensively involved in
operations behind enemy lines both during the diversionary attacks in Arakan,
as well as the Japanese thrust towards Imphal and Kohima, along with the
Burmese National Army led by Ba Maw and Aung San.
When Japanese
funding for the army diminished, Bose was forced to raise taxes on the Indian
populations of Malaysia and Singapore. When the Japanese were defeated at the
battles of Kohima and Imphal, the Provisional Government's aim of establishing
a base in mainland India was lost forever.
The INA was
forced to pull back, along with the retreating Japanese army, and fought in key
battles against the British Indian Army in its Burma campaign, notable in
Meiktilla, Mandalay, Pegu, Nyangyu and Mount Popa.
However, with
the fall of Rangoon, Bose's government ceased to be an effective political
entity. A large proportion of the INA troops surrendered under Lt Col
Loganathan. The remaining troops retreated with Bose towards Malaya or made for
Thailand. Japan's surrender at the end of the war also led to the surrender of
the remaining elements of the Indian National Army.
The INA
prisoners were then repatriated to India and some tried for treason. Among the
INA personnel, there was widespread disbelief, shock, and trauma. Most affected
were the young Tamil Indians from Malaya and Singapore, both men and women, who
comprised the bulk of the civilians who had enlisted in the INA. The
professional soldiers in the INA, most of whom were Punjabis, faced an
uncertain future, with many fatalistically expecting reprisals from the
British.
The Indian
soldiers in the British Indian Army, some two and a half million of whom had
fought during the Second World War, were conflicted about the INA. Some saw the
INA as traitors and wanted them punished; others felt more sympathetic. The
British Raj, though never seriously threatened by the INA, tried 300 INA
officers for treason in the INA trials, but eventually backtracked.“
The Ministry
of Home Affairs was right in transferring the RTI application to the National
Archives as far as records are concerned. But, the MHA should have taken
responsibility to answer the question regarding revoking the social stigma
attached to INA veterans, clarifying the doubt why they should not be
considered as freedom fighters and whether MHA was ready to provide same
benefits such as pension to the members of INA.
It is the
duty under Section 4 of RTI Act to provide this information on its own. They
naturally feel that they are undoubtedly soldiers and should have been
recognised as freedom fighters. While other freedom fighters get pensions and
other privileges from the Ministry of Home Affairs, they also deserve same
respect. Other freedom fighters, if not recognised, do not suffer indignation
as the INA Army members who face prosecution as ‘deserters’ of army.
The Prime
Minister has recently declassified 33 files regarding Nethaji and released them
to public domain, which are accessible in http://www.netajipapers.gov.in/.
Subsequently more digitised files were released. After this, the National
Archives of India also released 200 more digitalised files. All these can be
researched by any interested citizen or researcher.
One
interesting file about the Indian National Army reveals that the balance funds
and property like gold, which was lying in Singapore Bank was handed over to
Indian Government. These files do not have anything on the status of the
members of Indian National Army.
The
Commission felt that the MHA is under an obligation to explain the logic or
reason in neglecting the members of INA led by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and
rejecting them the status of freedom fighters. The Commission directed the
office of MHA to provide answers to the above questions and inform the
appellant about the policy, the decision and action on the RTI application
filed by this appellant within 30 days. (Based on the decision of CIC, in
Prodyot Kumar Mitra v. PIO, National Archives of India, CIC/CC/A/2015/001837 on
13th February 2017)
.JPG)
.JPG)
