Article milestones Date Process Result November 15, 2015 Peer review Reviewed September 11, 2011 Peer review Reviewed February 17, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 13, 2017 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

India: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Military history: Asian / British / European / Indian / Japanese / South Asia / Southeast Asia / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Indian military history task force Japanese military history task force South Asian military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force World War II task force Japan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:16, March 11, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Southeast Asia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. British Empire High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. South Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Relentlessly, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 20 October 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

I have done a copyedit of the article for grammar, spelling and sentence structure. I have fixed a couple of broken references, but I have not in any way done any reference-checking. Points that I have noticed while copyediting:

• lots of links are dead
• frequently the sources do not appear to be sufficient to justify the text they are supporting
• I have some concerns over OR/NPOV aspects
• some works that are referred to in inline citations do not appear in the reference section
• quite a few WP:SUBMARINE links

Relentlessly (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request for further clarification, I'm thinking of passages like this one:

Further criticisms have been made in recent years over the denial of the "freedom fighter's pension" awarded to those in the Gandhian movement and over the general hardships and apathy surrounding the conditions of former INA soldiers.

This is presented as a general fact, but the citation that supports it is a single news article about one case. There are a few such incidents in the article. It's not just newspaper articles, but historians as well. Even if you have three historians saying something, you have to be careful around WP:SYNTH, particularly on potentially controversial subjects like this one. If you are thinking about FA, I urge you to do a very careful review of the sourcing of every statement.

You would also do well to consider WP:CSECTION. Is there another way you could frame the "Controversy" section/daughter article?

I took out a lot of submarine links while editing. Here is one more: propaganda campaign. There are possibly some others, I think.

Finally, NPOV. I tried to tone this down while I was editing, but it's worth considering anyway. What portrayal of the INA dominates? Is it the Indian nationalist one? What critiques are there of this view? As I say, I tried to tone down excessively positive statements, but it's worth a good check through.

Relentlessly (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Relentlessly. I can address most of these. However I will have to point out that the Controversy section and the Controversies article are actually put in to make the article NPOV. The reason is there are quite diametrically opposing views on the army, as the lead will say. Further, very lightly aware reader will have one or the other PoV. I highlight to you the discussions in this talk page itself (see above), the discussion in the Controversies talk page, Tokyo boys talk page, that there "are" many PoVs some diametrically opposed to the other. The Controversy section and the sub-article in itself has had to be created to state that those PoVs exist without qualifying or commenting on these, and includes both positive and negative PoVs. Its a bit like talking about Chengiz Khan, to Mongolians he is a hero and to Hungarians he is the devil incarnate. Without mentioning both sides, any article on the unit as an article on the Khan would be incomplete. Its a bit like talking about Chengis Khan, to Mongolians he is a hero and to Hungarians he is the devil incarnate. Without mentioning both sides, any article on the unit as an article on the Khan would be incomplete. To avoid conflicts, it has been lumped together under a 'Controversies' section. PS. I think you raise important points, and I will copy and paste this to the peer review page.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relentlessly raised some interesting points, and I have tried to edit the article appropriately. The main objectives were

a. Reference the controversies to specific people rather than making broad general statements. b. Depict both the PoVs regarding the army. The latter point is particularly important since both the "traitors" and "patriots" view points are fiarly widely and strongly held. I suspect in India "Patriots" is universal while in Britain "Traitors and Axis collaborators" view point is universal. This leaves the only NPOV solution to mention both with references. Note neither view here is minority and both are significant. I will welcome more comments. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree rather strongly with an NPOV (or all points-of-view) solution. (For some of the subtleties, see George Orwell's essay on Subhas Chandra Bose and the Wikipedia article on the Red Fort trials.

In the difference below, both the original language and the revision seem to be incomplete from opposite viewpoints:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_National_Army&curid=173386&diff=1149187529&oldid=1148985222&diffmode=source]] —— Shakescene (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shakescene: There are many sources for saying Azad Hind was a Japanese puppet state. Similarly, INA was a Japanese puppet army and that has been heavily documented too by reliable sources. For example, Yuki Tanaka calls it "a puppet army under Japanese control".[1] Others describe it as "puppet army composed of Indian prisoners of war",[2] "a Japanese puppet organisation".[3] and so on. Orientls (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another article that seems to be a very similar topic to this one: Indian National Army in Singapore. Perhaps they should be merged together? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge on the grounds that this page is already too big at over 100k and so can't really accommodate any more. Klbrain (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it exists is heavily duplicative of this one, but it could be a topic worth covering in a separate article. —innotata 14:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you all think that adding order of battle of INA will be a good idea? 1st Division - Subhash Brigade (1st Guerrilla Regiment) - Gandhi Brigade (2nd Guerrilla Regiment) - Azad Brigade (3rd Guerrilla Regiment) - Nehru Brigade (4th Guerrilla Regiment) Reserve (for lack of better words) - Rani Jhansi Regiment Iamgreat4eva (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been marked change in the article, initially written with painstaking attention to NPOV. There appears to be a team of editors very keen to hoist the tag "collaborator" on this organisation, which is at painstaking odds with the Indian perception of this unit as very patriotic freedom fighters. Of note Collaborator is a pejorative term, and I have a deep suspicion that this is the intention of foisting the identitiy in the lead. This ofcourse necessarily makes it PoV as it igniores a diametrically opposing view that Indians hold of this unit. This view was common in the 1960s and 70s in Oxford and Cambridge old boy historians who had lived through the war. Input from other editors are welcomerueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. What "opposing view that Indians hold of this unit" is irrelevant unless you have WP:RS which would debunk this view. INA being a mere collaborator or puppet of Imperial Japan is a prevalent fact today as well. See:

• Yuki Tanaka (2017). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. Asian Voices. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 215. ISBN 978-1-5381-0270-1. Retrieved 2024-07-18. a puppet army under Japanese control
• Seaman, H. (1989). The Battle At Sangshak: Prelude to Kohima. L. Cooper. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-85052-720-9. puppet army composed of Indian prisoners of war
• Brayley, M.; Chappell, M. (2013). The British Army 1939–45 (3): The Far East. Men-at-Arms. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4728-0441-9. a Japanese puppet organisation
• Tsouras, P. (2001). Rising Sun Victorious: The Alternate History of how the Japanese Won the Pacific War. Alternate history. Greenhill Books. p. 169. ISBN 978-1-85367-446-4. "These leaders had little time for non-Japanese allies and even distrusted their own collaborators of the Indian National Army (organized on Tojo's orders)
• Spencer C. Tucker (2016). World War II: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 978-1-85109-969-6. The tanks then dashed to cut off Meiktila, easily sweeping aside Japanese-puppet Indian National Army forces.

Your edit is also promoting the hoax about Attlee and INA about which you have been already told many times before as well so don't engage in edit warring to restore your misleading edits. Orientls (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have very limited idea of how inflammatory and limited your comment appears. Equally it is surprising to me that you have used the "Reliable source" to argument to dismiss one PoV in favour of another, while at the same time dismissing the books that are considered The authoritative histories on the unit, whilst relying on sentences plucked from history books etc delving on the time. I know I because I wrote this artcle in 2007. I have requested admin oversight on this.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I am finding it difficult to accept you know of this subject, yet do not know of this differences of this POV (which is leaving me struggling to assume good faith on your part. Yet stating the obvious here is a google search to show Indians see them as freedom fighters.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address your points nonetheless:

a. You are wrong- No I am not. What opposing views Indians (billions of them) hold is not subject to WP:RS, and is an integral part of WP:NPOV. The discussions in above sections over the preceding twenty years in themselves should be sufficient to satisfy to you or anybody else that this is a very contentious thing to say. I am surprised you have made this argument and are so dismissive. There is a Whole section in the article, called Contoversies that delves on these PoVs and why these are contentious.

b. INA being a collaborator (PUPPET would apply to Provisional governement of free India]] is covered in the very introductory section, this is not a matter of fact but a matter of perception as explained above, and in the books and articles quoted in the previous versions of the article. You have thrown out sentences to support your POV using sentences from somewhat related books and encyclopaedias (WP:RS tertiary source) to support a POV, whilst ignoring a detailed and in-depth version provided in the article from books and resources delving on the subject itself. It's a bit like teaching making curry to an Indian using a British cookbook. Moreover, and belabouring the point There is a Whole section in the article, called Contoversies that delves on these PoVs and why these are contentious. Additionally, amongst the books you have used, "An alternate History..."??? Are you serious???

c. The hoax regarding Clement Atlee and INA is a very well known "comment" widely discussed in India as you will see from reliable sources. Whether true or not is not for your me to decide, that would make this original research, wikipedia is not the grounds for this. I am curious nonetheless how you know of my input into a debate nearly eight years previously? Have you (under a different username perhaps) and I interacted before?

I will also add, the Short description is factually inaccurate (this iwhat gives the POV game away), as majority of the soldiers were not British Indian Army POW, but in fact Indian civillians from south-east Asia, again explained in detail in the article. The POV bias to describe the unit as collaborators has blinded the editors to this and overall degraded the article to a POV and poor shell of what it was in 2007. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what some people believe. What really matters is the information from the reliable sources which you are clearly ignoring. The book, "The Alternate History of how the Japanese Won the Pacific War", you are targeting comes from Greenhill Books which is a quality military history publisher. Azuredivay (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rueben_lys, you simply don't understand what is WP:RS and what is WP:V.

Some Indians also believe that Nathuram Godse was a great man but Wikipedia cannot say that. Similarly, you are not supposed to hide behind snide POV of some Indians by removing the reliably sourced facts and then say "but some Indians don't believe this". Your attempts to sideline the description of INA as puppet or collaborators by calling it a "British POV"[4] despite the reliable sources that I mentioned above is also disruptive.

Your hoax about Clement Attlee has been debunked elsewhere by WP:RS.[5] If you are unwilling to use common sense then at least you should read what is WP:RS. You are using horrible sources to push this hoax even when you have been told before to stop adding about it. Orientls (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After having been in Wikipedia for nearly twenty years, I would hope I understand WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with NPOV. If a large enough number of Indians believe Nathuram Godse to be a goodman, NPOV would dictate that that POV is incorporated into an article about him. The POV of some Indians is not "snide" (and betrays the strong POV you are trying to bring up), and it is not your role to judge that. The description of the POV of INA as collabroators is not fact, it is a POV. Greenhill publishers or not, "Alternate history" is not history. My "horrible sources" are history books written on the topic by widely acclaimed historians. I know because I wrote this article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe you are so correct then why are you not addressing the problems with your edits? You are promoting a hoax and whitewashing this subject. You are doing no favor for yourself by ridiculing one source which comes from military historian Peter G. Tsouras. There is a universal consensus over INA about them being Japanese collaborators. You don't get to WP:OWN this article just because you edited this article years ago. Orientls (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the mention of the Atlee comment is what is bothering you, please see WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. In relation to an article on INA, this is the right place to mention this comment (WP:RSd), and not, for example Indian Independence Movement page where this would be a fringe theory. I will also point out, this is just a comment, in the correct article, where this comment is appropriately placed, just as Winston Churchill's comment celebrating Madanlal Dhingra's gallows speech as "one of the finest in patriotism" belongs in an article about Dhingra.

I still have no idea what the issue with my edits are? Other than pointing out using a pejorative term (Collaborator)in the lead sentence is profoundly POV, since it promotes one point of view (British) voer another (Indian: freedom fighter). Also, thankyou for linking this author Souras's article on wikipedia, I still don't see how you are concluding "fantasy history" is a reliable source, and am thoroughly thoroughly surprised you are insisting that this is a reliable history! You are aware what Alternative History is, I would hope??? There is another clue in the title of this gentleman's book "An alternate history". And if this wasn't clear enough to you (I am trying to help you here), it is a subgenre of speculative fiction!!! (to quote wikipedia itself), and your author (by his own wikipedia bio) appears to be not a military historian, but an author in military alternative history. I hope you will stop pretending to be informed now?

This also led me initially to suspect that the argument of WP:RS that you made was a red herring to support one POV over another. I have looked through your other references, one (Yuki Tanaka) mentions a few sentences on INA, the other (by your Royal Navy sailor) does the same, and the fabulous fantasy history, and a second encyclopaedieic book. Please see WP:RS and familiarise yourself with what is considered reliable source, primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

I will contrast this with, for example, two of the prime resources I used to write the article in 2007 were Peter W. Fay's The Forgotten Army, published by University of Michigan press (JSTOR link to academic peer review linked here), and Joyce C Lebra's Jungle Alliance: Japan and the Indian National Army Joyce C. Lebra published by University of Cambridge press (again, JSTOR link to academic peer review linked here). I had also used Hugh Toye's The Springing Tiger by Cassell. Every other substantial reference in the article version I have written is either from academic journals (Carl Vladivella Belle), or where discussing POVs, I have references these to reputable sources, e.g., Newspapers, current affairs publications of regard, or the Singapore government website on the INA, which ahs since been taken down (I believe) but archival versions are available. I am highlighting this to emphasise these are not my viewpoints/POVs, but very essential component of NPOV. Your demand to justify my edit would have been frustrating if it was not hilarious! You are asking to justify maintaining NPOV. You are quite right, I don't own this article, nor any other. However your edits were quite blatantly POV, and the weakness of the reference you use demonstrated you knew very little about the subject and probably presumed I was a naive editor (hence throwing fancy terms like WP:RS etc etc). WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia. If you wish to find somebody who knows about the subject, is dedicated to India related topics (including Bose and INA), and who has sparred with me in the past in India related pages, may I suggest User:Fowler&fowler who we all hold in high esteem.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There is not a universal consensus that INA were a collaborator (pick any three of the esteemed work I have pointed out). Philip Mason (Deputy Secretary, Defence Co-ordination and War Departments 1939–42; Secretary of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, India and Head of Conference Secretary, South-East Asia Command 1942–4, Joint Secretary, War Department 1944–7) says exactly this in Hugh Toye's book in the foreword. If you wish I will provide you the exact page number. There is universal consensus that there are two diametrically opposing view points.(Again Philip Mason says so, do you wish for the reference?). This is similar to what Dr Jon P. Dorschner's describes and explains in more modern times (2017) as he reviews two different books of history (“India at War” (The Subcontinent and the Second World War) by Yasmin Khan, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2015, ISBN 978-0-19-975349-9, and India’s War (World War II and the Making of Modern South Asia) by Srinath Raghavan, Basic Books, New York, 2016, ISBN 978-0-465-03022-4). So these are not my view point, this is NPOV. Any lay person who has any interest in World War ii history and/or India at the time and India today knows what you have suggested is bunkum. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been already lectured over your disinformation about Attlee before too, as such what you are doing right now is outright WP:DE.

All of the sources cited by Orientls prove the dominance of the label of this group as collaborators or puppets. While you have ZERO sources to confirm your position.

Joyce Lebra nowhere refutes the label of "puppet" but only mentions who used to treat INA as puppet.

Yes there is universal consensus against your POV. None of your sources are supporting your position. Falsifying sources will not do you any favours. Azuredivay (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are being, other than being deliberately blind. Plus, I have been lectured to? Who exactly has lectured me? And what makes you think I am somebody to be "lectured to" in the first place? Perhaps you could seek the opinion of the editor you feel was "lecturing me" (who BTW is exactly who I would suggest for a 3rd opinion) and ask him/her what regards he holds of my contributions? I can see you are quite fixated upon a remark attributed to Atlee, is this the main issue? If so I would ask you to familiarise yourself (as I have said above) with WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and perhaps take a step back and think of being the Devil's advocate to see if the other side may have a point? BTW if you state there is "universal consensus", WP:RS says you should be able to justify the exact phrase that there is universal consensus, are you able to do that? No, you don't, I know that. I am not going to engage with this frivolous "Orientls's citation" argument any more after this unless there is substance provided. A fantasy history, a history of a different battle book written by a photographer, an encyclopaedia of something else. Enough said!rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Mine is not POV, it is exact opposite and NPOV, I am mentioning both sides, using neutral and non-inflammatory language.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark: I have asked two further editors who had "lectured me" in the past for their thoughts and opinions (I can't believe I am asking for 3rd opinion on the sources Orientls) on the edit and whether my edits are fruitful or disruptive. I am sure they will be happy to contribute as well.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have known @Rueben lys: for nearly 18 years, more or less from the time I arrived on Wikipedia. The two of us have discussed the INA and Bose from the get go. I believe some of the wording on the British Raj and India pages are the result of our collaboration. Although we did not always see eye to eye on every issue concerning these topics, I have great respect for rueben_lys as an editor of exceptional intellectual integrity.

I have only quickly skimmed the discussion above. The sources compiled by rueben_lys are among the foremost in the topic area. The sources compiled by his interlocutors in this discussion are unknown to me. The major historians of the Second World War in South Asia, including Christopher Bayly, Yasmin Khan, Daniel Marston, or Srinath Raghavan do not consider the INA to be collaborators.

To the extent that some of rueben_lys's interlocutors have employed intemperate language, I can only urge them to pull back. They do not want to go down the road of penalties, topic bans, and outright bans.

I wish rueben_lys continued success on Wikipedia. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS I apologize for not replying earlier, my "bell icon" is perennially 99+ so I don't see any warning of having been flagged! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, sources of rueben_lys are not saying INA were Japanese collaborators but they don't deny this fact either. For example, he cites Joyce Lebra who himself notes that "For many staff offficers in IGHQ, particularly in the Operations Bureau, and for some staff officers in the field, the INA was a puppet army to be used for propaganda functions according to Japanese requirements."[6] This confirms that this view prevailed also inside Imperial Japan.

You have cited Daniel Martson, but he noted that INA members "were convinced or coerced to fight for the Japanese".[7] Others like Arthur L. Herman,[8] Brian P. Farrell,[9] also call it a "puppet" while Charles S. Maier,[10] Peter Lyon,[11] Theodore Ropp[12] and others call INA collaborators.

POV pushing by rueben_lys does not end here. He is also out here to claim that Clement Attlee had credited this unit for the independence of India despite fact check above with this source and also Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose/Archive 2#The Clement Attlee remark where he was debunked. Azuredivay (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to a ping by user:Drmies on user:Bbb23's talk page.

The lead of the Indian National Army page has been afflicted by edit warring in which I see the main bone of contention to be the lead sentence, i.e. "... was a collaborationist armed unit of Indian collaborators that fought under the command of the Japanese Empire. It was founded by Mohan Singh in September 1942 in Southeast Asia during World War II."

For a long time, perhaps ten years, the article, which has been written almost entirely by user:Rueben lys began: "... was an armed force formed by Indian nationalists and Imperial Japan in 1942 in Southeast Asia during World War II. Its aim was to secure Indian independence from British rule. It fought alongside Japanese soldiers in the latter's campaign in the Southeast Asian theatre of WWII." (see, for example, this version of 26 February 2021).

The following day, User:Cordyceps-Zombie, who has since been blocking for abusing multiple accounts, changed "Indian nationalists" to "Indian collaborationists" in this edit, and since then periodically, like the plague bacillus forewarned about in the closing pages of Albert Camus's The Plague (novel), some version of: "collaborator", "collaborationist," "quisling," "traitor," or "deserter," reappears and the battle is thereafter joined by some of the editors—user:Orientls, user:Adiiitya, user:Abhishek0831996, user:Azuredivay, all of whom share the property of never having added any content to the article, only of having edit warred over its lead sentence. I have no desire to engage these editors in any manner, therefore, I have added some reliable sources to a later sentence (in the lead's third paragraph): "Under Bose's leadership, the INA drew ex-prisoners and thousands of civilian volunteers from the Indian expatriate population in Malaya (present-day Malaysia) and Burma Among the cited authors are: Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper (in particular their Forgotten Armies, Harvard University Press, 2005, Google Scholar citation index 322). Others include Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Leonard A. Gordon, and Sugata Bose, all major historians of South Asia. May I request one or more of the editors, both admins and others (some of whom have made good suggestions on the leads of articles): @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Tito Dutta, Drmies, DrKay, Joshua Jonathan, and Austronesier: to please rephrase and summarize the sentence already there in the third paragraph (to which I have added the sources) in order to rewrite the lead sentence? Otherwise, I fear that generative AI will sooner than we think kill Wikipedia, by summarizing secondary sources more accurately than the paragon of nonstandard diction that currently constitutes the lead sentence. Already, when you ask: "What is the Indian National Army?" Google takes you not to WP Indian National Army page, but to an AI overview, which avoids collaborationists and synonyms thereof. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the many times you are being warned over your mass WP:CANVASSING. When you are involved in a content dispute, try WP:DR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that I have soft pinged adminstrators and some seasoned editors who have not edited this page. It is that WP editors can see in plain sight what WP:Civil POV pushing is all about. You and your cohorts have contributed not one sentence to this article. But you feel entitled to holding up the lead sentence with one word, repeated twice in infirm syntax, and then littering a talk page thread with a wall of quotes, not a single one is from a major introductory textbook per WP:TERTIARY, which is WP policy in matters involving due weight, which is the issue here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Fowler&fowler, thanks. I've read over a ton of material already, but not yet the sources, and I'm really kind of at a loss. Is at the heart of this the question of whether "collaborationist" applies? But no one argues there was no collaboration with Imperial Japan, right? Drmies (talk)
• I don't think there's reasonable dispute that there existed collaboration with Imperial Japan, but equally I don't see what adding "collaborationist" to the lead achieves - I don't even understand whether it's supposed to make the INA look good or bad. "armed unit that fought under the command of Imperial Japan" is clear enough - what does adding "collaborationist" add to the reader's understanding? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The INA, while its association with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is suspect, "Collaborationist" only loosely fits that association. Regardless of whether it was or not, the sourcing is rather weak since it is not discussed in the article body (except tangentially) and it is sourced in the lead to a book that addresses global post-war period rather than the period of its actual existence or of India during the war in particular ("an account of global history since 1945" writes the Monthly Review).RegentsPark (comment) 01:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of better sources, as user:RegentsPark implies, I would prefer a lead sentence with citations (that would eventually be stacked in one) along the lines of:

The Indian National Army was an armed force formed in Southeast Asia during World War II; it comprised British Indian Army prisoners of war captured by Japan and enlisting Tamil civilians; it was led by Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose and furnished support to the Japanese Army during its unsuccessful attack on British India.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]}

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My whole purpose was to undo a sudden and mass change made by an editor whom I didn't know and who reverted the graphic Changes like insignia and flags. Nothing to do with any type of lead text. ♘♞ 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀^{(𝓣𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Adiiitya: I apologize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adiiitya, you made this edit, without explanation, because a picture was changed? You could have checked the history, or gotten to learn who the editor was, or looked at the talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal is entirely misleading, and it entirely contradicts not just the scholarly consensus on this subject but also the essence of the subject itself. If you are really "speaking of better sources", then see how the scholarly sources (some of whom you are citing above) have described this unit:

Also, since many of these INA members were " were given menial jobs and deployed to guard the concentration camps, construct airfields and act as camp followers to the Japanese Army", because of which "Mohan Singh protested and fell out with the Japanese",[13] replacing the term "collaborators" with "fighters" was misleading. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources use the term "puppet" rather than "collaborationist"; and what part of "puppet" is not conveyed by "Under Japanese command"? Besides, the first source I spotchecked was Lebra 2008, which doesn't support your point at all; you have taken a snippet out of context. As such I have little confidence in the interpretation of the rest of these, many of which google books does not let me access. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then the term "puppet" needs to be laid out just like it has been done with many other collaborators of Japan and Germany. Since we have used the term "collaborationist" there should be no dispute over the present version at all.

Regarding Lebra, you have missed the discussion above. Lebra is being quoted to show that even many of the officials in Japan treated the unit as a "puppet army". This proves that this categorization is long term and totally universal. Nevertheless, we have used the term "collaborationist" because it is milder in comparison with "puppet".Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the lead yet, but I also feel doubts about the term "collaborationist." It's a term used in Europe for people who collaborated with an enemy which forcefully occupied and terrorized their country. Parts of the British Empire where occupied and terrorized by the Japanese - but does that make those Indians collaborators, as for them their country was occupied and terrorized by the British?

If the term "collaborationist" is relevant, it should be explained why - how was it relevant in that time and context? "Regarded by .... as collaborationist," idem to "treated as a puppet-army." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Japan had occupied the Asian regions and then this unit was created, thus "collaborationst" is correct and already described throughout the article. We can discuss whether we should use "puppet" or "collaborationist". Azuredivay (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Japan had not occupied India, this analogy is incorrect. The INA's stated aim was Indian independence and not necessarily to further Japanese hegemony in Asia. So collaborationist doesn't really fit. If Japan had occupied India and used the INA to run the country then, like the Vichy government, they would definitely have been collaborationist but that didn't happen. However, I agree that the INA's position in history is complicated. They were an army of sorts but had no independent control over their own actions and they were being used by the Japanese for their own purposes. I guess, this should be made clear in the lead. But by using whatever terms are used in the predominance of academic sources. RegentsPark (comment) 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it user:RegentsPark is that these editors, especially Abhishek* and Azuredivay, have been engaging in very selective summarizing of the authors. These editors have made no contribution to the article (as they haven't to Mahatma Gandhi either), but on the talk pages they unload selective outputs of Google searches, for example in this instance of "collaborator" OR "puppet". So, Abhishek*, for example has given the example of Joyce Lebra for "puppet." But what she says is is quite a bit more qualified and involved:

"For many staff officers in IGHQ, particularly in the Operations Bureau, and for some staff officers in the field, the INA was a puppet army to be used for propaganda functions according to Japanese requirements. For others, at the top, like Sugiyama and Arisue, the INA was a revolutionary army so far as the Indians were concerned, but it had to be subordinated to the Japanese military and political objectives. For still others, mostly young idealists in the field like Fujiwara, the INA was a genuine revolutionary army which should receive real and sympathetic support from Japan."

The reference here is to Field Marshall Hajime Sugiyama, Chief of General Staff of the Imperial Japanese Army, Lieutenant General Arisue Seizo, chief of the intelligence department at Imperial General Headquarters, and Iwaichi Fujiwara, the founder of the First INA. Elsewhere, she says, Army Chief of General Staff Sugiyama Gen took a special interest in India derived from his service in India as a military attache. Sugiyama, like, Tojo and Shigemitsu , developed a special sympathy for Subhas Chandra Bose

So, while it is true that the Japanese were using Bose and the INA for their purposes, it is also true that to some extent Bose was using them for his purposes. I can't be sure, but based on all the sources I have read (and I have read the 14 cited above in the sentence in addition to Lebra (and others that have not been cited), I think the Japanese would very likely not have attacked India were Bose not egging them on, enthusing them on, or guilt-tripping them on, whatever the case might have been. Joyce Lebra speaks to this ambivalence in several places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS Also, when we say only "collaborator" or "puppet," we pay no heed to how summarily the departing British officers left the Indian rank and file and the civilians when escaping from Singapore and later Burma. Of the one million Indian who trekked from Burma to India, a large percentage died from malnutrition and disease, in turn worsening the excess deaths in the Bengal famine of 1943. Not one Briton lost their life in that famine, in contrast, to somewhere between one million to three million Indians. I am not remotely in the camp of the subaltern historians or the usual left-wing critics of colonialism, but conversely, we can't completely ignore a reality of class and race that took the American GIs to point out and advertise when they returned to America. Keith Jeffery speaks to this in the quote in reference [14] above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my edit. 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀 ♘♞ 16:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the painstakingly neutral language I used to write the lead was accurate and NPOV afterall. Also the entire introduction section as it stands is very PoV, it keeps saying and using the word "puppet" and "puppet" and "puppet" it almost sounds ljme the person who constructed this has a personal animosity to the INA, and also seeks to strip in idea of potential legitimacy. It is also very bland, lacking in details, at times blends the first INA with second INA and repeatedly tries to establish in prose that "the INA" was being "handed over" from someone to the other. Also, the sources!!! OH.MY.WORD. The sources!!! A reference from Yuki Tanaka on the Batlle of Hogwarts, a reference from encyclopaedia of the world from 8am to 8pm for some thing else. And deliberately miss representing the sources. Although, this is hetter than the last reference from "Alternate History". It does a good job of stripping details that made its way into my version. The only PoV I can see here abuts the political attack of one particular Indian Political party (Not Hindu natioanlist) that tries to suppress and delegitimise any competing legacy. And to restate the obvious, Indians dont see INA as collaborators, as I had evidenced in the last version. Why dont the fellow editors who are neutral not compare the prose, source, and construction of the article as I wrote, compared to this unbalanced version? If this version stands, this would be the best ezample of a good article destroyed by wily PoV pushers while WP stood aside. As dar as I'm concerned, the WP version as it stands is not getting into any reviews of the unit. Joyce Lebra btw, used to think very highly of the version I wrote.rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

I understand you are agrieved, but with respect user:Rueben lys, this is not helpful. We are trying to frame a lead sentence, not the lead, at least not in this thread. Bemoaning the loss of your work on the talk page will not magically bring it back. We are attempting to repair the phrasing in the lead sentence that is not representative of the broad-scale sources (such as introductory undergraduate and graduate textbooks in history), which have typically been vetted for due weight. What Joyce Lebra thought about this article when it bore more of your imprint is neither here nor there for WP's purposes. I hope you understand. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I am bemoaning anything other than the degradation of the article (not just the lead) into a PoV filled nonsense. That it was my work has little to do with it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Drmies, Bbb23, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark: I have now added the sentence proposed above as the first sentence in the article's lead. I have also added the INA's motivation, which was not one of betrayal in the way a British soldier in India might have had. In fact, Claude Auchinleck, C-in-C India during WW2, repeatedly made the point when the British Army in India was reformed after 1943 and became more accepting of Indians commanding white British officers. There was a feeling of resentment among the INA officers against the British, both their superiors and subordinates, for having been mistreated and then summarily "handed to the Japs," when Singapore fell. (See the last citation--to Keith Jeffery).

The sentence has four independent clauses separated by semi-colons and is cited to 14 very reliable sources. I am not completely confident that the editors who had edit warred with Rueben Llys before will not reappear on this page, if not right away, then during a lull. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• F&F I love you like a brother, but I don't know what I am doing here. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies: Fair enough. I've rewritten the lead sentence again and made a distinction between collaboration born of mutiny and collaboration with Japanese Fascism. Please read it. It is a lot better than simply throwing in the buzz-words "collaborationist" and "puppet," an activity my interlocutors were thus far engaged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC) Also pinging @RegentsPark and Vanamonde93:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is understandable that people are not interested in whitewashing a Japanese puppet unit. What rueben_lys wants is a fan page supportive of POV mainly promoted by the likes of Hindutva speakers like G. D. Bakshi, given he wants us to ignore what "Indians dont see". I would just believe that Fowler is putting money on the wrong side here, because if he really believes in the POV of Reuben_lys then that would be really disappointing. Orientls (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't work in postcolonial India, nor am I beholden to Rueban lys. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have revised the lead again. Please don't revert the page back to its buzz words version, written in nonstandard diction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring to impose your version, but I would assure you that is unwise. You should read WP:DR. Azuredivay (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an article about an armed force in World War II, largely comprising Indian soldiers of a British-controlled army, the British Indian Army, who, after being captured by the Japanese, had attempted to piggyback the Japanese army in WWII to liberate India from colonial British rule. However, a third of this army comprised civilian volunteers from among the Indian community in Southeast Asia. Several editors here want "collaborationist" and "puppet" in the lead sentence of this article.  They have one source published by a red-linked publisher to which they keep reverting, a point mentioned by admin RegentsPark earlier.  They claim a past consensus and reject any change as out of hand.  They template me on my user talk page for edit-warring.  They are correct about the old longstanding version being a somewhat rose-tinted view, but they have gone over the top in the other direction.  They seem unable to understand that when a colonial power had employed its colonized population to fight its war, the usual black-and-white certainties of World War II and its aftermath need more nuance. I, who have marshalled scholarly sources and have a record of painstaking and NPOV writing, don't stand a chance.   There must be some justice in this world and room for nuance. Please view the recent page history, in particular my last version, which was summarily reverted, and the sources being disregarded in the process. Soft pinging some admins: Bishonen, Johnuniq, Black Kite, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, DrKay, Drmies, Bbb23; some old South-Asia hands: Johnbod, Joshua Jonathan, and some folk from WP:RS/N: ActivelyDisinterested, S Marshall Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: I don't know what a "soft ping" is, but please stop pinging me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You are simply ignoring the fact that this group has been described as a puppet or collaborationist unit of the Empire of Japan. I don't see any reason to overlook this fact. You are engaging in inappropriate WP:CANVASSING. Orientls (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:Civil POV pushing. The Wikipedia community is wise to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably never read what you are linking. Orientls (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for pinging me. After reviewing the sources that I can see, I am not convinced that "collaborationist" is the best adjective for the Indian National Army. Firstly, we don't say "collaborationist" about directly equivalent armies such as the Army of Vichy France or the Burma Independence Army; and secondly, "collaborationist" certainly isn't a fair description of what motivated Mohan Singh or Subhas Chandra Bose.

I accept that there is a source for "collaborationist" but I do not feel it's the best available source.

I would prefer the language from Rafe McGregor writing in Military History Magazine, Vol 33, Issue 1 (May 2016), ISSN 0889-7328, p. 64, which you can access via the Wikipedia Library. This describes the INA as "Japanese allied and supported".—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall. Thank you for this very informative reply. I will look up that source very soon. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just read McGregor. It is very well written. I'll have to think now how (and how much) to weave in with some judiciousness. Thank you. Very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fowler&fowler I have only a surface level knowledge of the issue, I don't think I can help much. I know that INA collaborated with the Japanese, that Bose had some similar world views, and that the situation is complicated by the British occupation of India, but I couldn't give a properly weighted summary of those issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, AD. Completely understandable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Fowler's formulation was quite good though, perhaps, breaking it up into shorter sentences might be a good idea. In its current form, it is a difficult read. Both aspects of Bose's army are included (fight for independent/collaboration). The current version reads as if the only purpose of the INA was to further the goals of the Japanese, which is very far from the truth. That said, the sourcing for "collaborationist" is terrible. Regardless of which version is used in the article, it should either be better sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you RP. I too was worried about the length of the lead sentence. I will try to break it into shorter sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some more nuance, adding to my previous comment: the qualification "collaborationist" is controversial, and should not be given as a statement of fact. Who regarded the INA as collaborators? An occupying force, the British, and their Indian collaborators. Compare the Finnish "collaborating" with the Germans to resist the Russians, who invaded Finland. Or the Georgian uprising on Texel, commemorated yearly at Texel, and honoured with a War Graveyard and a memorial. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not controversial but is backed by many scholarly sources, and nobody sincerely disputes it. None of the sources cited above by Abhishek0831996 are from the British colonizers thus we cannot say that this group being a collaborationist unit was only British view.

Regarding your question that who regarded them as collaborators, I would say it is a universal view that this group can be best described as a puppet or collaborationist unit. They were recruited by the Empire of Japan for this purpose. There is a full Collaboration with Imperial Japan article here. Orientls (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather that Imperial Japan recruited them for propaganda purposes. These were prisoners of war, and the IJA expected good soldiers to fight to the death. By the act of surrendering -- simply by being captured -- they made themselves contemptible in the eyes of the IJA. The IJA wouldn't trust them to do much heavy fighting.

But the word "collaborationist" is basically a judgement on the collaborator, not on the conqueror, and when we're deciding whether to say "collaborationist", we should therefore be interrogating the INA's motives, not the IJA's. My reading of the sources is that the INA's motives were more complex than just collaborationism and I do think we can find a better way of phrasing this.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious that "universal view" is contentious, as shown by the discussion at this talkpage, and by the descriptions in the article, which states, multiple times, that the British, and their loyalists (who collaborated with what was regarded by many as an occupying force) viewed them as collaborationist; and that the British actively propagated to view them as collaborators. From the article:

• "Indians rapidly came to view the soldiers who enlisted as patriots and not enemy-collaborators. Philip Mason, then-Secretary of the War Department, later wrote that "in a matter of weeks ... in a wave of nationalist emotion, the INA were acclaimed heroes who fought for the freedom of India."[125]"
• "In Singapore, Indians – particularly those who were associated with the INA – were treated with disdain as they were "stigmatized as fascists and Japanese collaborators".[158][159]"
• "British and Commonwealth troops viewed the recruits as traitors and Axis collaborators.[3]"
• "Fay notes some officers like Shah Nawaz Khan were opposed to Mohan Singh's ideas and tried to hinder what they considered a collaborationist organisation.[199]"
• "He concludes that the Jiffs campaign promoted the view that INA recruits were weak-willed and traitorous Axis collaborators, motivated by selfish interests of greed and personal gain. He concludes that the allegations of torture were largely products of the Jiffs campaign.[100][201][202]"

Your comment nobody sincerely disputes it is a little bit odd in this regard.

Furthermore, Henry Heller (2006). The Cold War and the New Imperialism: A Global History, 1945–2005. Monthly Press. p. 87. is used only one time, in the lead; this WP:CHERRYPICKING a source to make a controversial statement violating WP:NPOV, instead of summarizing the contents of the article in which it is explained that there are various views on the INA. Actully, instead of "viewed" we could also write "stigmatized." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the British but also a number of Japanese officials also viewed this unit as a puppet. Lebra has been quoted a few times above and the quote is "For many staff officers in IGHQ, particularly in the Operations Bureau, and for some staff officers in the field, the INA was a puppet army to be used for propaganda functions according to Japanese requirements." Azuredivay (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking here about "collaborationist," not "puppet." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Rafe McGregor once. I will read him again after fully awakened with coffee. I note S Marshall's renewed emphasis on the middle ground, especially the INA's recruitment for propaganda purposes, a point echoed by A. J. Stockwell in citation [3] in my last version (see here), where he says, "the principal contribution of the INA was to the propaganda subverting British India." I note Joshua Jonathan's good points about the waters of expository or descriptive prose muddying in the context of colonialism. I have made a note of their helpful citations. But before I put all this together, I do strenuously object to the sentence after the lead sentence about the INA being founded by Mohan Singh. That was the First Indian National Army. Besides, it was not founded by Mohan Singh alone but by Iwaichi Fujiwara and Mohan Singh, which speaks to a Japanese role in recruitment. The top of the article proclaims that this is the Second INA, not the first. So, before I do anything, I will correct this error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe say it was founded by Mohan Singh et. al. and then re-founded by Bose?—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I have written "revived," but "refounded" gives Bose a deservedly bigger role. Happy to change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joshua Jonathan and S Marshall: I don't see a reason to dispute the stable lead, however, as S Marshall suggests that we need to find better wording then I have something in my mind. Given all the recent messages here, it seems that the dispute here is only over the single word "collaborationist". What if we remove that word from the first paragraph and use the 2nd paragraph to describe that this unit has been widely labelled as puppet and collaborationist? I don't think that would need anything like "which was viewed as collaborationist by the British[2][3][4][5] and some of their Indian loyalists". We can simply say "varyingly described as a collaborationist or a puppet unit..." Azuredivay (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• That would be the conventional Wikipedia approach but I personally dislike it. I hope we can say what it was, not what it was described as; I am averse to the he-said-she-said that plagues fraught topics. The truth is that the INA was more anti-colonial than pro-fascist, although fascists likely did exist within it, and I hope we can find a form of words that captures that idea succinctly.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't anything wrong with providing a balanced view on lead. This unit getting termed as "collaborationist" or "puppet" can be pointed out on lead. Do you have any proposal that can make way for that? See the lead of Subhas Chandra Bose. It also points out what "many" believe. Azuredivay (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have written the entire lead of Subhas Chandra Bose, every word of it. Please don't misemploy my effort there by proposing a cherry picked formulation of undue weight here to be its equivalent. I have already proposed a version of the lead sentence here, which I will soon modify with S Marshall, Joshua Jonathan, and RegentsPark's inputs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing "collaborationist" from the first paragraph would be fine with me. The sixth paragraph of the lead already says "The INA's members were viewed as Axis collaborators and traitors by British soldiers and Indian PoWs who did not join the army, but after the war they were seen as patriots by many Indians." The sentence "varyingly described as a collaborationist or a puppet unit..." is not an adequate description of the controversy surrounding this unit, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A legitimate criticism not so much of the INA, but of the men of the INA after their release into civilian life in 1946 is that the religious pluralism, if not outright secularism, of the INA although admirable did not penetrate more than skin deep among some in the rank and file. For in this civilian afterlife some of them (as well as ex-Indian Army soldiers), participated in the religious violence of India's partition, employing military tactics and lethality on unarmed civilians. See 1947 Amritsar train massacre and the quote from Ian Talbot in footnote 8 there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to make an issue just because I mentioned the article on Subhas Chandra Bose. You don't own that article.

As pointed out by Joshua Jonathan, the sentence is already mentioned, and the 2nd and 6th paragraph of the lead is already describing the controversy as well. I have removed the word "collaborationist" from the lead altogether and also removed the spam done here by anon on 1 January. Yes you have "proposed a version of the lead sentence here" but it is too problematic to keep here because it is burying the key points.

At the end of the lead, we can mention the acts related to INA after the independence which include 1947 Jammu massacres, 1947 Amritsar train massacre and fighting in favor of Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948. Azuredivay (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Azuredivay, we've been very patient with your behaviour but this is unacceptable. Kindly allow the article to be edited.

It is not up to you to decide what the key points are.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be nothing more than a unilateral edit. To state INA's view when the opposing view hasn't been mentioned on the first paragraph would make the page look biased. The current lead is good enough. Orientls (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion above, a number of experienced editors explain why it isn't good enough.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now rewritten the first two paragraphs, factoring in the inputs of most everyone here. The sentences are cited to the best-known historians of late colonial India, among them Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Christopher Bayly, Sugata Bose, Joyce Lebra, Leonard A. Gordon, Daniel Marston, David Ludden, A. J. Stockwell, Keith Jeffery. I have also used the superbly-written piece in Military History by Rafe McGregor. I have removed the flag in the infobox as the Indian National Congress had first dibs from December 1929 onward, when Nehru hoisted it on the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore. Even if Bose used it after 1943 to represent a militaristic effort, it most certainly did not have the blessings of the Congress' nonviolent campaign for India's independence. I have also removed the picture of the INA "memorial" in Calcutta whose notability I fail to understand. There were no Bengalis to speak of, let alone residents of Calcutta in the INA other than Bose. The INA never set foot in Calcutta as it did in or around Imphal and Kohima. I have therefore replaced the Calcutta picture with one of the INA Martyrs' Memorial Complex in Moirang, just outside Imphal, Manipur, where in April 1944, the INA opened its first HQ on Indian soil, the caption stating so cited to Rafe McGregor. I have to say I enjoyed reading the sources. Thank you all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou @Fowler&fowler for an excellent effort. I would highlight, however, the sentence "did not oppose Japanese Fascism" sits uneasily in that part of the introduction. Either qualify it with a lead ("controversial legacy" or some variation thereof) or alternatively, note that the controversy is covered in the last paragraph of the lead. I am not aware however that INA's lack of opposing Japanese atrocities (whether on purpose or by ignorance) has generated much view (amongst native Malay population, etc), debate (in post-war Southeast Asia, noting that Malay Indian Congress was led by INA members), or historical analysis (amongst historians including Lebra, Sengupta, and others). I am therefore fairly surprised this sentence made it's way, and I do wonder if this is one of those "Fascist-adjacence" arguments that again is "tarnish-by-association" in its interpretation

. The sentence on wartime influence similarly feels ill-seated, and requires an intro as a qualifier ("is accepted to have little influence on the field of battle" etc") as it seems otherwise to be a point of view that is notnout of place with William Slim. Nonetheless, one must give credit for a superb effort, where credit is due. To Fowler.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 06:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysing the recent edits of Fowler, I think instead of saying "was a Japanese-allied and -supported armed force", we can simply say "was a Japanese organised armed force". Lastly, I don't see a point in adding "and led by Indian anti-colonial nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose" on the first paragraph because it was formerly led by Mohan Singh with thousands of members, and later it was revamped by Subhas Chandra Bose. This sentence should be removed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Thank you all. I have just woken up. Once replenished with coffee, I will examine the scholarly sources again, especially tertiary sources, such as introductory textbooks and review articles, to ascertain I have due weight-backup, and perhaps replenish the sources if need be. You might find some clues to my approach in my edit summaries hereafter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PS Of the four lead paragraphs, I have rewritten the first three. I will return another time to rewrite the last. This is all I can do in a page I came to seriously look at only as a result of a ping by user:Drmies. I thank them as I do user:RegentsPark, user:Joshua Jonathan, user:S Marshall for their suggestions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PPS I thank user:Rueben_lys for their comments as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]