Liberation or Subjugation? Revisiting Netaji's Strategy with Japan

 We already know that Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose took help from Japanese forces in his fight to oust the British Raj from India. This demonstrates his unwavering dedication to freeing India from colonial rule. The intention of this blog is not to question Netaji's patriotism or commitment but to critically examine whether his alliance with the Japanese Empire was a strategically sound decision.

While it is impossible to know for certain what Japan would have done to India had it successfully captured Delhi and ousted the British, we can make a hypothesis by analyzing Japan's behavior in other occupied regions, including areas of British India such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and compare it with cases like Burma.

In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Japan successfully ousted the British and, in theory, handed over administration to the INA (Indian National Army). However, in practice, it was the Japanese forces that controlled the islands. During their occupation, Japan committed numerous atrocities against both the native population and others on the islands. When Netaji visited the islands, the Japanese carefully concealed these atrocities, ensuring he was unaware of the ground realities. As a result, Netaji left with the impression that the INA had genuine control and that the Japanese were sincere allies. However, when the British eventually recaptured the islands, the natives, despite their history of colonial oppression, actually welcomed them back due to the brutal treatment they had suffered under Japanese rule. This episode raises concerns about Japan's trustworthiness and intentions in other parts of India, had they been successful in advancing further.

The case of Burma offers a similar cautionary tale. Aung San, the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, initially allied with the Japanese to fight the British. Japan succeeded in ousting the British from Burma, but instead of granting independence, it imposed a brutal military occupation. Aung San and other Burmese freedom fighters were eventually forced to switch allegiances, seeking British assistance to expel the Japanese. After the war, Burma gained independence through negotiations with the British rather than through Japanese intervention.

These examples reveal a troubling pattern in Japan's behavior during World War II: while it claimed to liberate Asia from Western colonial powers under the banner of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, its actual governance often replaced one form of colonialism with another. From Korea to Manchuria, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia, Japan's actions reflected imperial ambitions marked by exploitation, forced labor, and cultural erasure.

While we cannot definitively state what Japan would have done had it gained control of all of India, it is reasonable to hypothesize that it might have followed a similar approach, prioritizing its imperial goals over India's independence. It is also unclear what Netaji’s response would have been had Japan refused to relinquish control after defeating the British. Some historians suggest Netaji may have had a backup plan to assert Indian sovereignty, but such plans remain speculative and would have faced significant challenges given Japan's dominance.

Ultimately, Netaji’s intentions were beyond reproach, and his alliance with Japan was born out of desperation to secure India’s freedom at a time when other options seemed limited. However, judging by Japan’s track record in occupied territories, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Burma, the strategy of allying with Japan may not have been the most prudent path. While it created pressure on the British, it risked replacing one colonial oppressor with another, potentially complicating India’s struggle for true sovereignty.