Why didn't India rebel during WW1 or WW2 (Short Animated Documentary)
video description
Date: 2024-09-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
SlimeJime
Disappointing and perfunctory. This video really glosses over the fact that the Indian independence movement had used its contributions to WWI retroactively to energize support and justify demands of increased political autonomy in the 30s. The political atmosphere of India as a new political entity was overwhelmingly pro-independence, to a degree that it was clear all further developments between India and the UK would be for greater autonomy. WWII greatly accelerated this process, to the point that it was obvious independence would not need to be achieved by military means. The UK basically came to the non-autonomous Indian government begging for support, and the simple fact that they genuinely relied on India in wartime made it clear to the common Indian that the Raj was on its deathbed. And this was abundantly clear in 1945, because the British were destitute, the ranks were eager to demobilize, and there was no appetite whatsoever in Britain for maintaining its mobilization to try and enforce its rule over the subcontinent.
To be frank, it reads as dishonest to discuss the Indian independence movement as a military rebellion that never occurred. The leaders of the movement understood that their relationship to Britain was largely economic, that India was not a militarized society and that militarizing India for the purposes of armed rebellion would exceedingly difficult and harmful to the interests of their middle and upper class base of support. They went as far as to disavow the Indian naval mutiny of 1946, which was instigated by sailors acting of their own volition. It was clear that all sectors of Indian society were on board with independence, and that the UK would be unable to enforce the Raj through arms.
reply
Disappointing and perfunctory. This video really glosses over the fact that the Indian independence movement had used its contributions to WWI retroactively to energize support and justify demands of increased political autonomy in the 30s. The political atmosphere of India as a new political entity was overwhelmingly pro-independence, to a degree that it was clear all further developments between India and the UK would be for greater autonomy. WWII greatly accelerated this process, to the point that it was obvious independence would not need to be achieved by military means. The UK basically came to the non-autonomous Indian government begging for support, and the simple fact that they genuinely relied on India in wartime made it clear to the common Indian that the Raj was on its deathbed. And this was abundantly clear in 1945, because the British were destitute, the ranks were eager to demobilize, and there was no appetite whatsoever in Britain for maintaining its mobilization to try and enforce its rule over the subcontinent.
To be frank, it reads as dishonest to discuss the Indian independence movement as a military rebellion that never occurred. The leaders of the movement understood that their relationship to Britain was largely economic, that India was not a militarized society and that militarizing India for the purposes of armed rebellion would exceedingly difficult and harmful to the interests of their middle and upper class base of support. They went as far as to disavow the Indian naval mutiny of 1946, which was instigated by sailors acting of their own volition. It was clear that all sectors of Indian society were on board with independence, and that the UK would be unable to enforce the Raj through arms.
reply
cortexradio
A few things that remained unmentioned
There were attempts at revolution during both WW1 and WW2both involving German support. In WW1, a revolutionary (the same person who tried to assassinate the Viceroy)Rash Behari Bosewould ship weapons from Germany to incite armed rebellion, the Ghadar Uprising. This would fail as the British would quickly learn of their plans and Bose would flee to Japan. In WW2, Rash Behari allied with the Japanese to invade Indiaand formed the Indian Independence League (in 1942. Another Bosenot related to Rash BehariSubhas Chandra Bosewould lead the IIL and re-organise it into the Indian National Armyits sole goal was to invade India with Japanese assistance and liberate it. It is worth nothing that after Bose’s death and the Red Fort Trialswhere his soldiers were tried for treasona major mutiny broke out across the Royal Indian Navy when the sailors discovered Bose’s activities. Attlee has cited this mutiny as one of the main reasons British presence in India became unfeasible.
reply
A few things that remained unmentioned
There were attempts at revolution during both WW1 and WW2both involving German support. In WW1, a revolutionary (the same person who tried to assassinate the Viceroy)Rash Behari Bosewould ship weapons from Germany to incite armed rebellion, the Ghadar Uprising. This would fail as the British would quickly learn of their plans and Bose would flee to Japan. In WW2, Rash Behari allied with the Japanese to invade Indiaand formed the Indian Independence League (in 1942. Another Bosenot related to Rash BehariSubhas Chandra Bosewould lead the IIL and re-organise it into the Indian National Armyits sole goal was to invade India with Japanese assistance and liberate it. It is worth nothing that after Bose’s death and the Red Fort Trialswhere his soldiers were tried for treasona major mutiny broke out across the Royal Indian Navy when the sailors discovered Bose’s activities. Attlee has cited this mutiny as one of the main reasons British presence in India became unfeasible.
reply
Whoami691
I think you glos s over how utterly disunited India as a country truly was and still is. There is a reason that in its 4000 years history it has only been the last 80 years it was a single united nation - And that was because of britain.
How can a nation that was supposedly so wealthy never have made such a vast global empire itself Internal conflict. It was never one single nation. It still wouldn't be if not for Britain - it would look more like the middle east.
The partitioning of india was done at indias request and that seems to be forgotten by everyone now complaining about it.
there is a reson India never managed to oust the EITC - Because it was so disunited and at war with itself that it was simply unable to do so - they hated each other more than they hated Britain.
Before that the population had been at war with itself for eons and only through the occasional dictatorship did it ever become one single kingdom.
And ask the moguls how that went.
reply
I think you glos s over how utterly disunited India as a country truly was and still is. There is a reason that in its 4000 years history it has only been the last 80 years it was a single united nation - And that was because of britain.
How can a nation that was supposedly so wealthy never have made such a vast global empire itself Internal conflict. It was never one single nation. It still wouldn't be if not for Britain - it would look more like the middle east.
The partitioning of india was done at indias request and that seems to be forgotten by everyone now complaining about it.
there is a reson India never managed to oust the EITC - Because it was so disunited and at war with itself that it was simply unable to do so - they hated each other more than they hated Britain.
Before that the population had been at war with itself for eons and only through the occasional dictatorship did it ever become one single kingdom.
And ask the moguls how that went.
reply
Reggie2000
Colonialism as a term in 2024 is just a racist way of saying, we worked with the local government to both our benefit. Because no Euro was sitting on the throne. When Europe did that in Africa, it was colonization. When Africans do it to each other, its expansionism or foundation building, or even gaslighting by calling it peace keeping. Because ultimately in even India, half the people were working with the Brits for 350 years. There few thousand troops were supplemented with a million local troops provided by the ruling goverment who equally used the Brits to stay in power. That being the many royals and there supporters who loved British rule. Its time we be honest about what really went on in these so called colonys and ask, who used who.
reply
Colonialism as a term in 2024 is just a racist way of saying, we worked with the local government to both our benefit. Because no Euro was sitting on the throne. When Europe did that in Africa, it was colonization. When Africans do it to each other, its expansionism or foundation building, or even gaslighting by calling it peace keeping. Because ultimately in even India, half the people were working with the Brits for 350 years. There few thousand troops were supplemented with a million local troops provided by the ruling goverment who equally used the Brits to stay in power. That being the many royals and there supporters who loved British rule. Its time we be honest about what really went on in these so called colonys and ask, who used who.
reply
peelsherrif0995
As an Indian myself, I can tell you this thing. Although the British did have control over India, the Indian administrators dealt with the majority of the population(and I am not talking about the princely states here. Majority of India’s population was rural. Most rural Indians never saw a foreign, let alone British person except when they roamed around the country. Among the urban population, they did support independence overwhelmingly but the majority of the population that was rural had never heard of the British and their lives barely changed before, during and after few decades after British rule.
reply
As an Indian myself, I can tell you this thing. Although the British did have control over India, the Indian administrators dealt with the majority of the population(and I am not talking about the princely states here. Majority of India’s population was rural. Most rural Indians never saw a foreign, let alone British person except when they roamed around the country. Among the urban population, they did support independence overwhelmingly but the majority of the population that was rural had never heard of the British and their lives barely changed before, during and after few decades after British rule.
reply
history_matters
as an indian, let me give more real and less political correct answer.
India had all the manpower and resource to drive British off, it was GANDHI and his pacifist leadership who wanted to wait and let British give them independance.
the real leader like subhas chandra bose who wanted to drive off britishers were ousted from the party.
basically all the leaders like him were shamed and removed from party, gandhi wanted all attention to himself. and at the end, British left on there own terms
reply
as an indian, let me give more real and less political correct answer.
India had all the manpower and resource to drive British off, it was GANDHI and his pacifist leadership who wanted to wait and let British give them independance.
the real leader like subhas chandra bose who wanted to drive off britishers were ousted from the party.
basically all the leaders like him were shamed and removed from party, gandhi wanted all attention to himself. and at the end, British left on there own terms
reply
kunalgaurav7222
India was a perfect slave race. Forward caste( brahman, Kshatriya, )
thinks that they are superior than lower caste. They can wear janeu and can make other untouchable whatever.
They served british with all might and dedication.
And then British gifted them with tons of land and made them zamindar.
So why would they revolt against british.
They made 80% of caste obc sc st untouchable and low.
Mangal pandey revolt against british was totally religious not patriotic.
reply
India was a perfect slave race. Forward caste( brahman, Kshatriya, )
thinks that they are superior than lower caste. They can wear janeu and can make other untouchable whatever.
They served british with all might and dedication.
And then British gifted them with tons of land and made them zamindar.
So why would they revolt against british.
They made 80% of caste obc sc st untouchable and low.
Mangal pandey revolt against british was totally religious not patriotic.
reply
mohammedrehan7491
It was not 350 Years actually Local rulers were ruling. The first War British won was Battle of Plassey in 1757 and they were now controlling Bengal region they slowly started conquering more land. Before that they lost all their Wars against Indians. They has symbiotic semi autonomous monarchs in place who would make sure Indians wouldn't rebel against them then by 1947 the leaders United the Nation. Then by 1950 all 300 princely States were forced to unite with India by Sardar Patel.
reply
It was not 350 Years actually Local rulers were ruling. The first War British won was Battle of Plassey in 1757 and they were now controlling Bengal region they slowly started conquering more land. Before that they lost all their Wars against Indians. They has symbiotic semi autonomous monarchs in place who would make sure Indians wouldn't rebel against them then by 1947 the leaders United the Nation. Then by 1950 all 300 princely States were forced to unite with India by Sardar Patel.
reply
theskycavedin
If the Indian people (as if there was the modern conception of an united Indian identity and nation state at the time) wanted them gone right away, it's kind of strange how local lords and nawabs kept willingly working with the British against their fellow Indians. There was no race war for control of India. Plenty of Indian rulers supported the British over their rivals and former conquerers. People extrapolate modern nationalism to the past where it didn't exist in the same way.
reply
If the Indian people (as if there was the modern conception of an united Indian identity and nation state at the time) wanted them gone right away, it's kind of strange how local lords and nawabs kept willingly working with the British against their fellow Indians. There was no race war for control of India. Plenty of Indian rulers supported the British over their rivals and former conquerers. People extrapolate modern nationalism to the past where it didn't exist in the same way.
reply
EdemJansen
No one has mentioned that the number of Indians who volunteered to fight for the commonwealth was the largest volunteer number in any country at any time in history. At the height of the empire there were less than 1000 actually British people administrating the whole indian sub continent. The video and comments have not recognised a large community of indian people who actually supported the British. India was a very important part of the allies and in the defeat of the axis.
reply
No one has mentioned that the number of Indians who volunteered to fight for the commonwealth was the largest volunteer number in any country at any time in history. At the height of the empire there were less than 1000 actually British people administrating the whole indian sub continent. The video and comments have not recognised a large community of indian people who actually supported the British. India was a very important part of the allies and in the defeat of the axis.
reply
shubhnamdeo2865
Hey man! I loved the video, but you left out a few important bits
1. The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
2. The Indian National Army, the story of which that would inspire revolts in 1946, a full year after its failure to liberate India (it did after its disbanding)
3. Government of India Act, 1935 guaranteeing (some) autonomy, like 10% autonomy but it was a big relief after decades of riots and brutal arrests
4. Brutal suppression of the Quit India Movement
reply
Hey man! I loved the video, but you left out a few important bits
1. The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
2. The Indian National Army, the story of which that would inspire revolts in 1946, a full year after its failure to liberate India (it did after its disbanding)
3. Government of India Act, 1935 guaranteeing (some) autonomy, like 10% autonomy but it was a big relief after decades of riots and brutal arrests
4. Brutal suppression of the Quit India Movement
reply
kanchavsoman7113
LITTLE ENGLAND and the tiny white race would never have had an industrial revolution if it was not for the de industrilisation of INDIA. inspite of getting independence we were unfairly partitioned against our will by the white race and our crooked elites, a CIVILISATIONAL STATE like INDIA was ruled by uncivilised whites only because of the support it recieved from english educated colonial stooges who went on to rule us after our hard earned independence
reply
LITTLE ENGLAND and the tiny white race would never have had an industrial revolution if it was not for the de industrilisation of INDIA. inspite of getting independence we were unfairly partitioned against our will by the white race and our crooked elites, a CIVILISATIONAL STATE like INDIA was ruled by uncivilised whites only because of the support it recieved from english educated colonial stooges who went on to rule us after our hard earned independence
reply
history_matters
Wouldn't the previous attempt of the Indian Revolt also have played a role I. e. bad memories Admittedly that was against the abomination that was the East India Company ) and eventually led to its demise and the British govt taking over, but still.
) if you think modern mega-corps are bad, imagine one effectively owning a sub-continent, with its own army and navy, and making its own laws. I bet Elon reads books on that and sighs wistfully.
reply
Wouldn't the previous attempt of the Indian Revolt also have played a role I. e. bad memories Admittedly that was against the abomination that was the East India Company ) and eventually led to its demise and the British govt taking over, but still.
) if you think modern mega-corps are bad, imagine one effectively owning a sub-continent, with its own army and navy, and making its own laws. I bet Elon reads books on that and sighs wistfully.
reply
theathiestcrusader
Who said India didn't rebel The Indians did rebel during World War I and World War II. Netaji created the Indian National Army in World War II from the Indian POWs captured overseas but the British created the Indian National Congress to contain the opposition to British rule and their leaders heavily opposed all radical elements of the independence movement such as Bose and Bhagat Singh, and made Mohammed 'Duratma' Gandhi as their leader.
reply
Who said India didn't rebel The Indians did rebel during World War I and World War II. Netaji created the Indian National Army in World War II from the Indian POWs captured overseas but the British created the Indian National Congress to contain the opposition to British rule and their leaders heavily opposed all radical elements of the independence movement such as Bose and Bhagat Singh, and made Mohammed 'Duratma' Gandhi as their leader.
reply
TristanBlack91
The reason for Britain's withdrawal from India after the Second World War was not the fear of an Indian uprising, but the fact that they did not want to take responsibility for the famines that would soon follow, as India's food supplies had been exhausted during the war. So if millions of Indians starved to death, this would no longer be Britain's problem as India was already an independent country at that point.
reply
The reason for Britain's withdrawal from India after the Second World War was not the fear of an Indian uprising, but the fact that they did not want to take responsibility for the famines that would soon follow, as India's food supplies had been exhausted during the war. So if millions of Indians starved to death, this would no longer be Britain's problem as India was already an independent country at that point.
reply
wilsonli5642
India didn't rebel but Indians sure did. While the leaders of Quit India advocated for nonviolence, many of their followers around the country took action on their own to destroy government buildings, police stations etc, and kill British policemen and soldiers. This required Britain to redeploy thousands of troops that could have been sent to North Africa or Burma.
reply
India didn't rebel but Indians sure did. While the leaders of Quit India advocated for nonviolence, many of their followers around the country took action on their own to destroy government buildings, police stations etc, and kill British policemen and soldiers. This required Britain to redeploy thousands of troops that could have been sent to North Africa or Burma.
reply
nvmtt
It wasnt that india didnt rebel at all. the free india army under netaji suvash chandra actively fought against british troops, with explicit support from japan. they were eventually beaten, but their troop count reached as high as 30 thousand. while that isnt much when considering the vast population of india, it is a sizeable force.
reply
It wasnt that india didnt rebel at all. the free india army under netaji suvash chandra actively fought against british troops, with explicit support from japan. they were eventually beaten, but their troop count reached as high as 30 thousand. while that isnt much when considering the vast population of india, it is a sizeable force.
reply
cgallegos2106
Well there was a couple of regional revolts in the 1930 that failed, then of course the Azai Hind movement with the Indian National Army (Indian soldiers fighting for the Japanese after the Fall of Singapore.
As you stated there wasn’t any mass revolt or uprising, but there was some small ones and collaborators.
reply
Well there was a couple of regional revolts in the 1930 that failed, then of course the Azai Hind movement with the Indian National Army (Indian soldiers fighting for the Japanese after the Fall of Singapore.
As you stated there wasn’t any mass revolt or uprising, but there was some small ones and collaborators.
reply
Jotari
I feel they were good at rounding up people who wanted to rebel violently needs a bit more explanation. After all, Ireland did manage to launch a rebellion during WWI, if the British were so good at sniffing out traitors then how did that happen Were they just more brutal about putting down malcontents in India
reply
I feel they were good at rounding up people who wanted to rebel violently needs a bit more explanation. After all, Ireland did manage to launch a rebellion during WWI, if the British were so good at sniffing out traitors then how did that happen Were they just more brutal about putting down malcontents in India
reply
chequereturned
Bit of a weird framing. What do you mean by India India wasn’t a sovereign state. The colonial government obviously didn’t rebel. The people Many didn’t but many did. You mentioned Quit India - that is a rebellion of a kind, and then there was Bose, whose forces sided with the Japanese
reply
Bit of a weird framing. What do you mean by India India wasn’t a sovereign state. The colonial government obviously didn’t rebel. The people Many didn’t but many did. You mentioned Quit India - that is a rebellion of a kind, and then there was Bose, whose forces sided with the Japanese
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
3:49
