Background:

The idea of forming the Indian National Army (INA) was conceived by Mohan Singh in Malaya. The main objective was to form an anti-British force to liberate India, as well as to check Japanese misconduct towards Indians in SE Asia. Till then, Japanese had allowed only the civilian Indians to form anti-British organizations. In February 17, 1942, Lt. Col Hunt, as representative of the British surrendered the Indian officers of the British Indian Army to the Japanese. The Japanese handed over these men to Mohan Singh, who was styled GOC of INA. Later on Subhas Chandra Bose, previously President of the Indian National Congress, and by now a revolutionary had received support of Germans and Japanese to his cause of freeing India. He arrived at Singapore in July 1943 and took over the command of the INA. In October 21, 1943, he proclaimed the Provisional Government of Free India. This provisional government then declared war on Britain and United States, and was recognized by the Axis powers and its allies. INA was successful in capturing some outlying territories of India, but it could not make much headway as the Axis powers collapsed. Also in the meantime, Subhas Bose was killed in a plane crash in August 1945.

Trial:

The surrendered men were put to trial in Court Martial conducted in Red Fort in Delhi. The main persons charged were the three leading officers of INA- Capt Shah Nawaz Khan, Capt. P.K. Sehgal and Lt. G.S. Dhillon. The Court Martial comprised seven members headed by Maj. Gen. A.D. Blaxland. Col. F.C.A. Kerin was the Judge Advocate. Advocate General for India Sir Naushirwan P. Engineer represented the prosecution, and Bhulabhai Desai headed the defence. The defence team also included some of the leading Indian leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru.

Charge and Defence:

The main charge of prosecution was that the accused had waged war against the King and forced the POWs to join INA. Individually they were charged with murder or abetment to murder. The accused pleaded not guilty.

The main issues for defence were to show that the men had voluntarily joined INA without any coercion, that INA was an organised army that was belligerent to the British, that INA was the military wing of a regular government entity, that the INA had an independent objective and were not under the command of the Japanese in its war operations against the British, and that the three men did not engage in war and killing for private cause or private motives. Under such circumstances they could not be prosecuted under the provisions of domestic law. Interestingly some of the prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves during cross-examination and one of them admitted before the court that he told what he had been taught.

The kernel of the argument of the defence was that when the British had given over the soldiers to the Japanese, the relation of soldiers with the Crown was severed. In the case of the accused, the King and the country did not coincide. Once the King was divided from the country, if they took over the cause of fighting for their country that could not be taken to be mere sedition as they were fighting for a regular army of INA whose aim was to free their own country. This INA was under a regular government having control over certain territories and also having allegiance of millions of Indians in SE Asia. This government was organised having its own structure along with institution like bank and issue of postal stamps etc. Parallels put forth were Americans- when they faced a conflict of allegiance between King and country, the Americans preferred allegiance to their country rather than the King. Another important point of defence was that it was not necessary that the two warring nations should be independent or sovereign. Similarities were drawn to the recognition given by the Americans and British to the Free French to liberate France. And also to other cases like the recognition to Czechoslovakians as belligerents in 1918 or to the Polish National Army. As the INA had reached a stage of war, the accused could not be tried under domestic law, nor were they individually liable for their action. If they were to be put under such liability, even those who fought against them should be put under purview of the same domestic laws.

In the course of the case, even the prosecutor admitted that the accused had no mercenary motive, and were guided by what the accused bonafide consider to be patriotic motives of doing service to India. And that such a thing needed to be taken into consideration while awarding punishment.

Outcome:

The General Court Martial found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to cashiering and transportation for life. The sentence needed to be confirmed by the Commander in Chief, who in this case Gen Auchinleck well aware of the explosive political situation and popularity of the INA and Subhas Chandra Bose in the country, commuted the sentences of all three to that of cashiering and forfeiture of pay and allowances.

Some more trials took place, however as these trails were leading to politically explosive situation and mass protests, the government gradually preferred to withdraw them. The British categorized all INA personnel into three categories - Black, Grey and White. White were allowed to rejoin the army, Grey were to be retired with their dues and pensions, while Blacks were to be dismissed and their dues confiscated. For India, these trials added to the ensuing nationalism in the country.

Further Reading:

1) Col N.S. Gill, Story of the INA, Publications Division (1985)
2) Leonard A. Gordon, Brothers Against The Raj, Viking (1990)
3) Two Historic Trials in Red Fort, ed., Moti Ram, Roxy Press
4) K.L. Gauba, Famous & Historical Trials, Orient Paperback (1972)

Click here to print.