Royal Indian Navy mutiny which gave a jolt to the Britishers

[Levina]

I'm not sure if a thread on this topic has been posted before.
I 've often heard that this mutiny did not get enough attention in our history books possibly because it was snubbed by all the political parties. Some call it as one of the most spectacular episodes of the intense revolt against the British Raj. It was the uprising of the sailors of the British Indian Navy, when hindus and muslims joined hands to fight for a common cause.

In one an extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British.
******************************************************************************************************



Contribution of Royal Indian Navy Mutiny towards India's struggle for independence

Royal Indian Navy Mutiny was another landmark in India's struggle for independence was the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946. Before the outbreak of the World War II, the Royal Indian Navy was formed being separated from the British Navy. The English officers of the Navy always ill-treated the Indian junior officers. There was a wide difference in salary between the British and Indian officers. The condition of the Indian soldiers attached to the Navy was miserable. They wanted to express their discontent.

The chance came in February 1946. On the seashore of Bombay, some Indian naval personnel attached to the warship 'Tulare' were receiving training. The poor food supplied to them and the highhandedness of their officers led them to protest it and they expressed' it by displaying posters on the barrack walls containing the slogan 'Hindustan Sindbad', 'Englishmen leave India' etc.

The British officers suspected the Radio operator Data and imprisoned him. This led the navy personnel in the barracks to strike. Just by that time the I.N.A. Trial in the Red Fort had accused certain officers and soldiers. These naval personnel wanted to relieve immediately the officers and soldiers in the I.N.A.

The mutiny soon spread to other barracks. M.S. Khan became the head of the National Central Strike Committee. The mutineers demanded better food, equal pay for English and Indian naval officers and soldiers, release of I.N.A. officers, soldiers and political prisoners etc.

The Hindus and Muslims ironed out the differences among them and joined hands to make the strike a success. The tricolor, crescent and hammer and sickle-flags were together raised on the mast heads of the rebel ship 'Talwar'. When they returned to their barracks, they found them surrendered by the British soldiers on 21 February, 1946, when the rebelling Indian heavy personnel wanted to break the cur den, fighting took place between them and the British soldiers.

At this juncture, the civilian population Of Bombay offered favourable response to the mutiny. They supplied food and other requirements to the Indian navy personnel. The Communist Party of India in Bombay gave a clarion call of general strike. Congress socialist leaders like Arena Assar Ali and Asyut Palwardhan supported it with utmost vigor.

However surprisingly, the Congress and the Muslim League did not support it. The leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Jinnah and several others persuaded the mutineers to surrender when they headed the guidance of these leaders. However, the mill workers fully supported the cause of R.I.N. mutiny and a street-fighting took place between them and the police. By the repeated appeal of Patel and Jinnah, the mutineers finally surrendered on 23 February 1946.

With their surrender, the R.I.N. mutiny came to an end. It failed largely due to the desire of the British Government and some Indian leaders who immediately wanted to quell it. The net result was this that the British Government now took precaution not to flare up mutiny against His Majesty's Government.

The wide support to this mutiny by the public in Bombay clearly showed that a sense of hatred had developed fully in the mind of Indians towards the British rule. When one thinks about the R.I.N. ratings, one remembers the words of the Naval Central Strike Committee - "Our strike has been a historic event in the life of our nation. For the first time the blood of men in the services and in the streets flowed together in a common cause."

 

[Kinetic]

I remember reading this in history books of 10 standard. But the entire syllabus was full of Gandhi led movements. In the last para was about this naval mutiny. Distortion of history at its best.

 

[Levina]

I remember reading this in history books of 10 standard. But the entire syllabus was full of Gandhi led movements. In the last para was about this naval mutiny. Distortion of history at its best.

The political class was against the mutiny, and that should be the reason why it didnt get enough credit.

 

[Kinetic]

The political class was against the mutiny, and that should be the reason why it didnt get enough credit.

Yes, those involved in the mutiny never accepted by the govt of India like INA.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@levina ; nice to read that, but there are many typos. The Telegraphist involved was B.C.Dutt, the Congress leaders (who sympathised with the strikers) were Aruna Asaf Ali and Achyut Patwardhan. Unfortunately the main-stream Congress leaders did not sympathise with the strikers including Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Jinnah and even Morarji Desai who counselled the strikers to lay down arm s and return to the barracks.

Needless to say, this Mutiny and another (but smaller) one in the RIAF shook up the British Estt. For the first time they confronted the fact that their Indian soldiers would not obey them blindly. As it is the British Empire was broke and owed money to everybody..... including the Colony of India. Another factor was that Madman Churchill had been booted out of power by the British people and Attlee who was much more realistic was the British Premier.

Finally, we must not overlook the role played by Franklin D.Roosevelt, the US President. He was very clear that the Colonies must be given freedom; something that had been enshrined in the Atlantic Declaration (which led to formation of the UNO); so he pestered the hell out of Churchill on this account. Churchill, pig-headed as he was tried to resist; but was wearing down. Finally he lost his post and power.

So Indian Independence did not come only out of "Non-Cooperation" and "Quit India" movements. The British had hordes of Gen.Dwyers who could suppress stuff like that. When the Brits understood that their Native Soldiers could walk out on them, the realisation dawned that the Generals were useless without an Army that would follow unquestioningly, not to mention that the Exchequer was running out of funds and the ordinary British out of enthusiasm to fight and die outside their country.

That is what led to Independence Day.

 

[Levina]

@levina ; nice to read that, but there are many typos. The Telegraphist involved was B.C.Dutt, the Congress leaders (who sympathised with the strikers) were Aruna Asaf Ali and Achyut Patwardhan. Unfortunately the main-stream Congress leaders did not sympathise with the strikers including Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Jinnah and even Morarji Desai who counselled the strikers to lay down arm s and return to the barracks.

You're right!
Aruna Asaf Ali who supported RIN's mutiny was criticised by Gandhi stating that she would rather unite Hindus and Muslims on the barricades than on the constitutional front.

Needless to say, this Mutiny and another (but smaller) one in the RIAF shook up the British Estt. For the first time they confronted the fact that their Indian soldiers would not obey them blindly. As it is the British Empire was broke and owed money to everybody..... including the Colony of India. Another factor was that Madman Churchill had been booted out of power by the British people and Attlee who was much more realistic was the British Premier.

Finally, we must not overlook the role played by Franklin D.Roosevelt, the US President. He was very clear that the Colonies must be given freedom; something that had been enshrined in the Atlantic Declaration (which led to formation of the UNO); so he pestered the hell out of Churchill on this account. Churchill, pig-headed as he was tried to resist; but was wearing down. Finally he lost his post and power.

So Indian Independence did not come only out of "Non-Cooperation" and "Quit India" movements. The British had hordes of Gen.Dwyers who could suppress stuff like that. When the Brits understood that their Native Soldiers could walk out on them, the realisation dawned that the Generals were useless without an Army that would follow unquestioningly, not to mention that the Exchequer was running out of funds and the ordinary British out of enthusiasm to fight and die outside their country.

That is what led to Independence Day.

I concur!
The loan of $US 4.33 billion loan (US$56 billion in 2012) from the United States, support for Attlee's pro-decolonisation Labour government in Britain, were the two main reasons which brought us the freedom.
I know Quit India was a disaster, it did not 've any immediate impact.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

Excellent article levina.
Mam the history what we read in books is so much doctored that it shows just one family and few individuals doing everything and taking credit. Thankfully when my grandparents read what i was taught in school history books they told their own version of what they experienced and read in those times. It was difficult to digest as the real story never fetched me marks in history exams. And the history exams i scored i knew were having doctored history of my country.

So many events which contributed in a big way. Its good that here we can remember such things or else i feel the real history would get lost for the future generations of this country.

 

[jamahir]

The tricolor, crescent and hammer and sickle-flags were together raised on the mast heads of the rebel ship 'Talwar'.

the red flag must have had more influence before 1947 than is admitted by gandhi lovers... and i like the term "rebel ship"... this was rightful rebellion as against the fake rebels arranged by british government since 2010.

by the way, wasn't there a bomb blast aboard a american or british naval ship in the bombay docks around this time??

The political class was against the mutiny, and that should be the reason why it didnt get enough credit.

those are the professional political class whose legacy south asia suffers until now... it should have been the professional revolutionary who should have led.

thanks for the thread.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

the red flag must have had more influence before 1947 than is admitted by gandhi lovers... and i like the term "rebel ship"... this was rightful rebellion as against the fake rebels arranged by british government since 2010.

by the way, wasn't there a bomb blast aboard a american or british naval ship in the bombay docks around this time??



those are the professional political class whose legacy south asia suffers until now... it should have been the professional revolutionary who should have led.

thanks for the thread.

Well, we also have the record of Comrade Shripad Dange and his fellow Comunistas who sucked up to the British then..... to remember.

 

[The_Sidewinder]

read it for the first time. Really our history books should be reviewed & most space should be given to struggle of Azad hind fauz & their contribution to Indias Independence added with various mutiny by soldiers of Indian british forces.

 

[axisofevil]

The political class was against the mutiny, and that should be the reason why it didnt get enough credit.

Actually Congress supported the Mutiny initially, then rejected outright when the mutiny started to loose. Typical politicans in the making.....they were ust concerned about protecting their future.

 

[kakathiya]

 

[punit]

the red flag must have had more influence before 1947 than is admitted by gandhi lovers... and i like the term "rebel ship"... this was rightful rebellion as against the fake rebels arranged by british government since 2010.

by the way, wasn't there a bomb blast aboard a american or british naval ship in the bombay docks around this time??



those are the professional political class whose legacy south asia suffers until now... it should have been the professional revolutionary who should have led.

thanks for the thread.

communist were biggest suckers of Britishers! during WW2 they were the most loyal agent of british passing information to their masters.

 

[scorpionx]

However surprisingly, the Congress and the Muslim League did not support it. The leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Jinnah and several others persuaded the mutineers to surrender when they headed the guidance of these leaders. However, the mill workers fully supported the cause of R.I.N. mutiny and a street-fighting took place between them and the police. By the repeated appeal of Patel and Jinnah, the mutineers finally surrendered on 23 February 1946.

Not surprising at all. Indian leaders had very little reasons to support the uprising. During second world war, it was a general realization among both British and Indian political elites, that the empire is on the verge of its extinction; the urgency to cut loose the empire of its colonies was quite easily marked in the way 1943 Bengal famine was managed (or rather mismanaged).If economic aspirations had started this empire, its economic compulsions and realities are going to bring an end to it.

Situation aggravated during quit India movement, when almost entire British civil and military machinery envisaged the movement (during an war that had put Britain at a point of life or death), as an act of treachery and back stabbing by Indians. Hostilities were growing up fast between the ruler and the ruled. After the war, civil and military officers were desperate to leave from the colonies; the appetite to administer the East had been evaporated by the side effects of war; thence, any moral or physical backing to an uncontrollable hostility (which could have hooked away the much desired credit of sending the British away from this country) seemed worthless to these leaders.

The article, for unknown reason misses out the facts that, apart of HMIS Talwar, there were other ships also like HMIS Sutlej and Jumna, whose crews refused to eat or work. HMIs Narbada had turned it guns to the Bombay Yatch club (Must be an intense moment of panic and nervous break down for its members). And crews of HMIS Hindustan in Karachi shouted Jai HInd and fired on the city. The British response to these mutinies were equally ruthless and swift as they usually had been, but it gave the strongest impression to London that without British Civil and military presence in India, such armed uprising would hardly be possible to forestall in future.

 

[jamahir]

communist were biggest suckers of Britishers! during WW2 they were the most loyal agent of british passing information to their masters.

weren't the most loyal citizens of the king the sanghis, like "veer" savarkar??