Login Register
Follow Us

Remembering the fallen heroes

On February 25, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the National War Memorial in New Delhi.

Show comments

Sq Ldr Rana Chhina

On February 25, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the National War Memorial in New Delhi. In doing so, he was fulfilling a poll promise as well as addressing a long-felt need for such a memorial to honour those members of India’s armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. 

While the construction of the memorial is in itself a welcome step and the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on his resolve to see the project through to its culmination, there are a few larger issues connected with India's approach to remembrance and commemoration that are worth examining in greater detail.

At the very outset is the disturbing tendency to appropriate remembrance as a tool for political gain. It has taken more than 70 years for the nation to construct a memorial to those who sacrificed their lives to uphold its freedom and integrity. Earlier, the Amar Jawan Jyoti — constructed under the arch of India Gate in January, 1972 — was installed by Indira Gandhi more to highlight her achievement as the architect of the victory of the 1971 Indo-Pak War than to honour the fallen soldiers. She followed an established Indian political tradition of claiming plaudits for the sacrifice of soldiers while paying perfunctory lip-service to their memory.

The Indian Army played a significant role during World War-I. Over 1.3 million Indian combatants and non-combatants served overseas at the cost of some 74,000 dead. This deployment was supported by mainstream Indian political opinion at the time as it was felt that the shedding of Indian blood on the battlefields of the world would result in an acceptance of India’s demand for political autonomy by the British. However, when the colonial authorities failed to live up to the Indian expectations, it resulted in hardening of the political stand from home rule and dominion status to Poorna Swaraj or complete independence. As a result, the soldiers who gained India her freedom were consigned to the dustbin of history. Similarly, during World War-II, the strength of the Indian Army had swelled to some 2.5 million by 1945. It was the largest volunteer army in the history of human conflict. Indian divisions emerged from the conflict being counted as among the finest fighting formations in the world. Over 86,000 Indian soldiers, sailors and airmen paid the ultimate price at the altar of duty.

Yet, with the onset of Independence and the subsequent pacifist view of the Government of India, war and its memorialisation were not considered relevant to the ideals of the new republic. Gradually, a narrative was built up denigrating the services of the old Indian Army prior to 1947. It was seen as having served imperial interests in colonial wars and was gradually eased out of national memory. However, even succeeding generations of India's fallen after Independence found no place in state memorialisation. 

Those that fell in the defence of Kashmir in 1947/48, or who perished trying to stem the Chinese onslaught in 1962, or died in the plains of Punjab or the deserts of Rajasthan in 1965 went unnoticed until the creation of the Amar Jawan Jyoti in 1972. Political and bureaucratic apathy over the last 70 years combined to deny the Indian soldier not just an acknowledgement of his service or a commemoration of his sacrifice, but also of his place in history.

Even today, little thought is devoted to providing a national framework for public commemoration. We have no register of casualties such as is maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which also includes details of all Indian casualties of the two World Wars. Suggestions to institutionalise a grassroots culture of remembrance by highlighting the valour of the armed forces, have fallen on deaf ears; as has the suggestion to adopt a uniquely Indian flower of remembrance, which can be worn by all citizens on a special day of remembrance in much the same manner as variations of the poppy are used by the Commonwealth countries on the Remembrance Day. We are yet to develop a vocabulary of commemoration. The widespread use of the term ‘martyr’ is a cultural imposition drawing on the Hindustani shaheed for its inspiration. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of its armed forces. He lays no wreath to honour the dead of his armies on Republic Day, nor did he see it fit to inaugurate the National War Memorial last month.

Commemoration and remembrance are not intended to glorify war, but quite the opposite. They serve to provide society with an occasion to recall the futility and horror of conflict, and an occasion to honour those who were true to their duty. Properly institutionalised, they are a safeguard against jingoism and a strict injunction to politicians to honour the apolitical ethos of the armed forces and to be mindful that remembrance and politics are never to be mixed. Unfortunately, Kipling's words immortalised in his 1890 poem Tommy, still ring true in the Indian context: 

For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”

But it’s “Saviour of ’is country,” when the guns begin to shoot.

— The writer is a secretary and editor, Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research.

Show comments
Show comments

Top News

Most Read In 24 Hours