RIN Mutiny, February 1946
Some important facets to that incident.
In response to this essay by Lieutenant General (retired) S. K. Sinha espousing the role of the colonial Indian Army in forcing the British to grant India independence in 1947, BeeCee sent me an interesting comment via email. His comment was about the Royal Indian Navy[RIN] mutiny of 1946 which finds a cursory mention in Sinha’s piece.
…the credit for taking up the case for ‘Recognising the role of the Armed Forces in the Independence Movement’ must go to Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. As CNS in 1996-97 (must have started in ‘96 being the 50th anniversary of the incident), he had strongly taken up the case for the recognition of ‘The Naval Mutiny of 1946′ and to treat the “Mutineers” as Freedom Fighters. There were grave misgivings within the Navy and the MOD. But he had his way.
If memory serves me right, the Navy had even named some harbour craft/ tugs after the leaders of that mutiny — Madan Singh, Khan, Dutt. Unfortunately, the lid seems to have been put on it after him.
The most authentic and detailed story, sans political overtones, of the RIN mutiny is in Chapter 4 of the book Under Two Ensigns: The Indian Navy 1945-1950 by Rear Admiral Satyindra Singh AVSM (Retd.). Fortunately, a pdf copy of the book is available at the website of the Indian Navy. The book unfortunately proves that certain parts of BeeCee’s recollection are off the mark.
In 1972, the Government of India addressed the Chief Secretaries of State Governments and Union Territories stating that ex-personnel of the Royal Indian Navy who had participated in the RIN mutiny would also be considered for the grant of freedom fighters pension. …A list of 457 sailors of the RIN who were discharged/dismissed/released from service as a result of the RIN Mutiny was prepared and subsequently 19 more sailors were added to this list making a total of 476. …This was approved by the Government for implementation on June 19, 1973.
It must be around the same time that the RIN mutiny, which the British refused to call a strike, would have been rechristened as the Naval Uprising. As far as the felicitation of the mutineers goes, Madan Singh and B.C. Dutt have each had ships named after them by the Indian Navy, nearly 52 years after the incident. In 2002, Indian Navy also unveiled a memorial in the honour of these mutineers, which stands in the busy Colaba area of Central Mumbai.
However, there is another interesting observation by BeeCee related to the RIN Mutiny that is worth sharing.
…while the civil society, politicians and even the armed forces — at some time or other — expressed unhappiness with the colonial masters, it were the civil services and the police which were loyally with them all along.
Indian army was also totally loyal.Had the army taken part in the struggle for independence , India would have not bifurcated
maybe anyone still interested could also spk to (a) Madan Singh or (b) his son. last available, contacted addresses were:
(a) ex No 4893 PO Madan Singh
592, Sector 16 D, Chandigarh 160015
(b) Dr Vijay Singh,
1501 Saturnia Heights, Drive
Reno, Nevada
another interesting publication* (‘ My service in the RIN’ ) is by an officer now 94, who lives in Lymington, UK. *Available in the USI. Has notes on those times of 1946 – and the PT, hockey and parades routine for the ‘mutineers / “pow” camp’ he was oic of. he revisited India 2004 and also met Adm Nanda over nimbu pani, cashew and sandwiches to reminiscence plus photos. then an army chief’s daughter wrote about the RIN mutiny for a JNU thesis; also interesting books by Percy Gourgey. DJ Hastings, Streatfeild-James, RD Katari (and his ref to Patel – a politician who was an exception to the ‘opportunity’ ), Story of the Pak Navy book and so on.
Unlike Navy Indian army was totally loyal to colonisers and even seems to be loyal today in some aspects. After RIN mutiny british realised that they could no longer maintain their hold on India and that was one of the main reason british left but surprising Indian history is silient on this saga.
I hope that dear Raj and Ashok read a few books written by British authors in the period of the raj. I recommend ‘The Men Who Ruled India‘ by Philip Mason, ICS.
This will amply clear the highest regards which the British rulers had for the Indian civil servants and their gratitude in maintaining the British rule.
It was as, if not more, difficult for the army man to speak against the colonisers/ government of the time as is now. After the 1857 War, 100s of soldiers were blasted from the barrel of guns, without trial. Further the British policy was to keep a tight leash on the doings of the Indian Army. In addition, one did not have to go through civil courts to prove an army man guilty of treason against the British empire.
Immediately after 1857, Indian civilians started entering the ICS. However there is difficulty in finding a single instance, right through 1947, wherein the honourables dithered from the tasks assigned by their British pay masters. Even when they were the majority of the Distt Commissioners during the War years. (Only Ballia fell to ‘Quit India’ in 1942).
In the above context, the Naval Uprising of 1946 is a shining example. And, Raj @ 1.18pm, creating a difference between the Navy and the Army is childish. I think I can guess your professional field.
Further, I would love to discuss on who did what during the Period between 1857 and 1947. Suffice
Friends (sic-Amongst Indian civilians) were thick as summer flies now
- Edwardes,Sir Herbert, 1857
who was right at agincourt ?
@IndianAce!!! I agree with what you saying. I have read the book that you are mentioning. I am not holding any brief for the role of the ICS and the IPS; they were the instruments of control and repression where required. My only point is the army , despite the restrictions that you are refering to, remained a mute spectature to the holocast of 1947. If it had played some positive role the nation may not have devided; not sure but I just feel it could have happened this way. Extending the argument to 1984 the army simply sat in the barracks 5 km away when thousands of country men where roasted alive on the streets of national capital. It was waiting for orders from leaders who had capitulated. The mayhem went on for three days and a simple stroll by one company of army would have scared away the marauders.
What if the mayhem had continued for 15 days; would the army still continue to sit in the barracks fighting nausea out of stench of burning flesh??
There is historic tendency in the army’s culture to pass off being supine as discipline and being apolitical
@Ashok,
Sir, Re: 1984, was it not a failure of leadership on the part of the officers commanding the men in the barracks? Agreed, they didn’t receive orders from above. But where was their self-initiative, that holiest of holy OLQs?
Agree with the second paragraph of your comment.
@.
Today’s Indian Express carries an Op Ed which essentially describes Agincourt as a post-facto PR coup by the British crown based on recent research that points out that at worst the troops of Henry V were outnumbered 2:1 and it is highly likely that they were, in fact, at parity with the French. Do read if you haven’t done so yet.
@IndianACE
Bureaucrats will follow rules – it’s their raison d’être. To fault them for following rules seems irrational now. Moreover was there a genuine alternative ready and willing to govern India had the Brits been overthrown in a coup at that time? Was the alternative credible? If not, how can one fault the cogs of the administrative machine for creaking on?
@Shaunk
Pas de touche!
Bureaucrats will follow rules- and so will the soldier. The response from the rulers to any disobedience of unjust orders is what needs to be noted- In the army- it will be very summary. And you know that!
You speak of a genuine alternative- I’m certain it was not ready even on 15 Aug 1947.
And Ashok brings in 1984 out of the blue! God! you people are still voting for the same team again and again. So spare me the tears!
And another thing- A couple of million Indian soldiers returned from the wars abroad, trained to fight and win and aware of the value of independence imbibed in their fellow soldiers from the then free world-
Don’t you think this mass was in any way responsible to just nudge the Brits to hasten their departure.
@IndianACE,
The million+ trained, battle-hardened soldiers returning with ideas of freedom were a major factor in the Brits decision to flee.
Agree with most of the rest of your post too.
Re: a genuine alternative not being available even on 15th Aug 1947, to an extent you are correct. But then the cogs in the machine had no choice then, did they? The Brits did flee, drawing lines on paper as they did.
As a die hard soldier I know mutineer is a mutineer. How can a sc….rel be designated as a freedom fighter for lifting barrel of the weapon towards his own colleagues.? Please dont glorify indiscipline and defame the sanctity of the concept of Freedom Fighter
[...] though the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946 has earned a footnote in the history of India’s independence movement, the role of the [...]