Page 63 - Leadership in the Indian Army

using it as merely window-dressing to impress the public and the outside world.
Though 2.5 million Indians had fought in the two wars, not one had been able to
make it to the rank of general. Important appointments dealing with operations
were denied to them and only a handful were given command of units. When
compared with the Soviet Union, which took shape at about the same time as
Indianisation began in India, the disparities became obvious. However, his most
scathing comments were reserved for the unfair treatment meted out to Indians:

The formation of the INA was not alone the work of its leaders like Bose, or of the Jap Opportunist. The
creation and growth of the INA was a direct result of the continuous unjust treatment of Indian officers
in the Army. It is the natural heritage of years of dissatisfaction, disappointment and disgust of various
elements in the Indian Army. The present members of the INA are to be blamed for their conduct, but
equally to blame is the Imperialist Anti-Indian British element in the army who, by their talk and action,
daily estranged the otherwise loyal mind of the Indian, and last but not the least to blame are the British
reverses in the Far East, which left the Indian soldiers to their fate.
Time is critical, and at this juncture, large issues are at stake. Momentous decisions have to be made,
and on them will depend the future Indo–British relations. The previous services of those in the INA
who actually fought for the British till they were captured by the enemy deserves lenient treatment.
Wisdom and foresight suggest that the crimes of the members of the INA be condoned.
One can only marvel at the brashness of a lieutenant colonel addressing the C-in-C
on such a sensitive political issue. No less surprising is the Auk’s response. Far
from taking umbrage, he understood that the feelings expressed by Nathu Singh
stemmed from nationalistic fervour rather than a rebellious disposition. He not
only chose to ignore the fact that Nathu Singh had violated protocol by addressing
the C-in-C directly, but wrote back to him in his own hand. He could sense the
anguish in Singh’s heart and could empathise with him. However, he felt disturbed
and hurt by the bitterness in Singh’s letter and admonished him, much as a
schoolmaster would his favourite pupil. The letter reveals the Auk’s deep
attachment to the Indian Army and his fondness for his Indian subordinate.
Marked ‘Personal and Private’, the Auk’s handwritten letter of 19 February
1946, reads:

I know that many of the views expressed by you are based on fact. All the same, I do feel that you are
wrong to dwell so much on past mistakes and bitterness and I know that many of your opinions are
exaggerated and unfair. I say I know this and it grieves me to think that you, whom I regard as an old
friend, should deliberately rake up old errors and misunderstandings…. You are one of the people on
whom I had hoped to rely…. I was deeply disturbed and I may say, disappointed by the general attitude
of mind expressed in your note, but I still hope that it does not represent your permanent frame of mind,
as this would cause me sorrow…. Needless to say, you have my assurance that this matter is private
between us. Your note will not be seen by anyone else and it will not have the slightest effect on your
official standing, so far as I am concerned, because I realise that you would not have written as you did
had you not had full trust in my good faith and friendship for you…. I do value your having written to
me as freely and openly as you did….

In May 1946 Nathu Singh was promoted Colonel and posted as Deputy Director,
Personnel Services, in the Adjutant General’s Branch in Army HQ, which was
then located at Meerut. Very soon, differences, developed between him and the