UK must honour Indian veterans

[Deletedid1]

A little over a month ago, any major decision that London needed to make would have to have been taken in Delhi – for her Majesty’s government had encamped en mass in the Indian capital. Not since the Delhi Durbar of 1911 had India witnessed such a high level British delegation. The end goal was to strengthen bilateral relations and build a “special relationship with India.”

However, unfortunately, much of India didn’t pay attention. The overlapping visit of Burma’s prime received as much (if not more) attention than David Cameron, in a clear sign that Britain’s hold over the Indian psyche lessens each year.

Not all is lost. The United Kingdom can still build a special relationship with the rest of the subcontinent. The tie that binds together India and the United Kingdom is a two hundred year colonial history. However, the history is replete with injustices. Correcting at least one would earn Mr Cameron and the UK goodwill across the subcontinent.

To start, Mr Cameron can take a page out of Nicholas Sarkozy’s book. The French president partially corrected a grievous French wrong by granting full pension to African soldiers that served in WWII. The African soldiers fought alongside the French, but their pensions were a pittance compared to their French counterparts.

Mr Sarkozy corrected that blight and earned the goodwill of many Africans. The United States has done much the same with Philippino soldiers who fought in WWII. While each case has its nuances and special situations, the overriding principle remains the same: equal pay for equal work. The British government did step up in the Gurkha case, but a much larger injury remains.

One of the great-untold stories of WWII is the contribution of over two million soldiers from the Indian subcontinent. The Indian soldiers deployed across the world to fight for British freedom while still awaiting their own. The gallantry they displayed is now folklore. The British Indian Army was the first to defeat both the Germans (in Africa) and Japanese (in Southeast Asia). Over 35,000 Indians died fighting in WWII.

They fought hand in hand with their British counterparts. They faced the same longings for home and hardships of desolate outposts; the bullets that fell many of them did not distinguish between white and brown and the blood they shed was all the same.

Yet, the recompense they earned for fighting for freedom was different. A fact that didn’t sit well then and still sits poorly. In 1946, the Indian Navy mutinied in Mumbai. While there were several causes (including ‘azadi’ - freedom in hindi), the immediate cause was different conditions and pay scales for British and Indian sailors.

Mr Cameron could do the right thing and honour the ethical obligation of the British government by provide those who served for his country’s freedom, the same pension that their colleague’s and his countrymen received.

Out of the 2 million Indian soldiers that served in WWII, the youngest is north of 80 years old. The cost of strengthening British Indian relations would be less than £100m (at a £10,000 lump sum payment to an estimated 10,000 living former Indian soldiers).

I spoke to several that served, some in the Air Force and some in the Army, all recalled their time with fondness. They are all in their twilight years and a £10,000 bonus would provide a small and welcome retirement cushion.

The beauty of such an act is that it would resonate across the subcontinent from Kabul to Lahore to Delhi to Katmandu to Rangoon and Colombo. At next year’s Delhi Durbar, Mr Cameron would be well served to announce that the British government is providing a lump sum payment to the living WWII soldiers. He could bring in these brave men and women and their British counterparts to Delhi and thank them personally. Rather than creating divisions as his last trip did, this act would unite the two countries.

[canny surya]

sCo_hmmthink *=: *=:

[banti321]

sSa_j@il