After Singapore Fell

[SkyRider]

Are there any Sikhs or students of Sikh history on the Board? I need you to confirm a story that Canadian WW II veterans told me (and the other kids) when I was a young child growing up in Northern Ontario. Firstly, let me say that there is absolutely no doubts about the courage, competency and loyalty of Sikh soldiers.

Sikhs were members of the British Indian Army sent to defend Singapore in WW II. When orders came down from their commanding British general to surrender, to a man the Sikhs said "we no surrender we fight" but orders were orders and Singapore fell to the enemy in 1942.

40,000 soldiers of the British Indian Army became prisoners of war. The enemy tried to "turned" the Indian POW's by asking: "Why you fight for the white man, join us your Asian brother". 30,000 took up the offer.

The story that was told to us kids is that the 10,000 Indian soldiers who refused to turn were all or almost all Sikhs. Could a Sikh or a student of Sikh history confirm this story. Shoot me a PM if you don't feel comfortable posting in the open forum. Thanks.

P.S. I tried doing some research on the Internet but could not find the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim breakdown of the 10,000 who refused to turn.

 

[oldjones]

Are there any Sikhs or students of Sikh history on the Board? I need you to confirm a story that Canadian WW II veterans told me (and the other kids) when I was a young child growing up in Northern Ontario. Firstly, let me say that there is absolutely no doubts about the courage, competency and loyalty of Sikh soldiers.

Sikhs were members of the British Indian Army sent to defend Singapore in WW II. When orders came down from their commanding British general to surrender, to a man the Sikhs said "we no surrender we fight" but orders were orders and Singapore fell to the enemy in 1942.

40,000 soldiers of the British Indian Army became prisoners of war. The enemy tried to "turned" the Indian POW's by asking: "Why you fight for the white man, join us your Asian brother". 30,000 took up the offer.

The story that was told to us kids is that the 10,000 Indian soldiers who refused to turn were all or almost all Sikhs. Could a Sikh or a student of Sikh history confirm this story. Shoot me a PM if you don't feel comfortable posting in the open forum. Thanks.

P.S. I tried doing some research on the Internet but could not find the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim breakdown of the 10,000 who refused to turn.

It is encouraging that you encountered nothing but intelligent reluctance to attribute such admirable loyalty by individuals to accidents of race and religion. One does wonder why you weren't more curious about the three out of four British Indian Army soldiers who said were turncoats. What do you suppose might have been the causes of such widespread disaffection?

 

[SkyRider]

One does wonder why you weren't more curious about the three out of four British Indian Army soldiers who said were turncoats. What do you suppose might have been the causes of such widespread disaffection?

Here is my theory which may or may not be correct. The story related to us kids by the WW II veterans didn't dwell at all on the 3 out of 4 who "turned".

The 40,000 members of the British Indian Army were majority Hindus and Muslims which is consistent with the demographics of India. By 1942 there was a fairly strong pro-independence movement in India so the loyalty of Hindus and Muslims in the Army to the Crown was questionable.

Also, "turning" meant that they would get much better treatment by the enemy than being a POW.

If there are any Hindus or Muslims or students of Hindu and Muslim history on the Board, I would love to hear your version of the 30,000 who "turned". Just to be clear, the only reason for this post is to reply to OJ's question. It is by no means a criticism of those who "turned".

 

[escortmonger]

It would not have been the Gurkhas,they were considered to be the best amongst the best

 

[In A Canoe]

I highly doubt the Gurkhas would have turned.
They were revered by the British and were considered elite and the enemy always feared fighting them.
It is plausible that some men of all religious and racial denominations would have turned in that situation.

 

[IM469]

From a quick Google:
"The Indian National Army (INA), formed first by Mohan Singh Deb consisted initially of prisoners taken by the Japanese in Malaya and at Singapore who were offered the choice of serving the INA by Japan or remaining in very negative conditions in POW camps. Later, after it was reorganized under Subhas Chandra Bose, it drew civilian volunteers from Malaya and Burma. Ultimately, a force of under 40,000 was formed, although only two divisions ever participated in battle."

Caption: Captured soldiers of the British Indian Army who refused to join the INA were executed by the Japanese

Indian army groups fought valiantly in many theatres but there was a faction that wanted independence from Britain who offered to help Japan to help their cause.

 

[oldjones]

Here is my theory which may or may not be correct. The story related to us kids by the WW II veterans didn't dwell at all on the 3 out of 4 who "turned".

The 40,000 members of the British Indian Army were majority Hindus and Muslims which is consistent with the demographics of India. By 1942 there was a fairly strong pro-independence movement in India so the loyalty of Hindus and Muslims in the Army to the Crown was questionable.

Also, "turning" meant that they would get much better treatment by the enemy than being a POW.

If there are any Hindus or Muslims or students of Hindu and Muslim history on the Board, I would love to hear your version of the 30,000 who "turned". Just to be clear, the only reason for this post is to reply to OJ's question. It is by no means a criticism of those who "turned".

A very weak theory for why you stereotyped Indian soldiers by different religious standards. In fact they were all Indians and thus seem equally likely to be pro-independence — absent any other evidence or argument.

In any case my question was how you 'account' for what you identify as religious-group behaviour, singling out Sikhs as 'loyal' while Hindus and Muslims (a full 3/4 of the Army) were disloyal. I think you need to get past religious and ethnic preconceptions if you're going to offer any persuasive reasons.

As to the general issue of 'turning' and getting better treatment than PoWs, the Germans made similar offers in the West and 'turned' English and American PoWs in small numbers, along with much larger numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and others (French, Dutch, Norwegian and other volunteers) who thought getting shot at and perhaps killed in the name of a New World Order offered better odds than regimes they'd opposed in peacetime. Considering the horrific reputation pre-war Japanese occupiers had earned in China and Korea, getting shot as a Japanese ally instead of starving to death in a camp should have been equally appealing to all.

We can take the numbers as facts; it is your accounting for numbers — turncoats and loyalists both — by religion that I'm asking you to back up.

 

[elmo]

A very weak theory for why you stereotyped Indian soldiers by different religious standards. In fact they were all Indians and thus seem equally likely to be pro-independence — absent any other evidence or argument.

In any case my question was how you 'account' for what you identify as religious-group behaviour, singling out Sikhs as 'loyal' while Hindus and Muslims (a full 3/4 of the Army) were disloyal. I think you need to get past religious and ethnic preconceptions if you're going to offer any persuasive reasons.

As to the general issue of 'turning' and getting better treatment than PoWs, the Germans made similar offers in the West and 'turned' English and American PoWs in small numbers, along with much larger numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and others (French, Dutch, Norwegian and other volunteers) who thought getting shot at and perhaps killed in the name of a New World Order offered better odds than regimes they'd opposed in peacetime. Considering the horrific reputation pre-war Japanese occupiers had earned in China and Korea, getting shot as a Japanese ally instead of starving to death in a camp should have been equally appealing to all.

We can take the numbers as facts; it is your accounting for numbers — turncoats and loyalists both — by religion that I'm asking you to back up.

As per usual, you are not being very helpful. He is asking for confirmation on a story he heard as a child, not making the political or religious statement you so desperately want him to "back up".

 

[escortmonger]

I highly doubt the Gurkhas would have turned.
They were revered by the British and were considered elite and the enemy always feared fighting them.
It is plausible that some men of all religious and racial denominations would have turned in that situation.

Sorry i mean to say that it wouldn't have been the Gurkhas.

 

[hungry]

The Gurkas were from Nepal.

 

[oldjones]

As per usual, you are not being very helpful. He is asking for confirmation on a story he heard as a child, not making the political or religious statement you so desperately want him to "back up".

He's 'quoting' a racist summary he claims to have heard, and asking us to confirm it for him, when that should be his task. I only point out the big holes and bigotry in the tale he recounted; if he wants to re-word it so it doesn't sound like setting up Sikhs as distinctly different and admirable by virtue of being Sikhs, and equating the Hindus and Muslims with traitors I'm sure he can. And should have.

Since his entire post was about three religious groups and their behaviours, how you failed to see the religious statement that was at the root of his question is beyond me.

 

[elmo]

He's 'quoting' a racist summary he claims to have heard, and asking us to confirm it for him, when that should be his task. I only point out the big holes and bigotry in the tale he recounted; if he wants to re-word it so it doesn't sound like setting up Sikhs as distinctly different and admirable by virtue of being Sikhs, and equating the Hindus and Muslims with traitors I'm sure he can. And should have.

Since his entire post was about three religious groups and their behaviours, how you failed to see the religious statement that was at the root of his question is beyond me.

Nope. You're making it into something it isn't...again.

 

[SkyRider]

My interest in Sikhs was recently rekindled when I heard that several Sikhs were elected to the House of Commons.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/na...story-in-canada-federal-elections/148783.html

Our new Minister for National Defense is the Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan, a Sikh. Unless our new PM interferes, I have no doubt he will be an excellent minister. He will be featured on CTV W-5 this Saturday.
http://www.canada.ca/en/government/ministers/harjit-singh-sajjan.html

 

[SkyRider]

Sorry i mean to say that it wouldn't have been the Gurkhas.

He knew that Percival had a much larger army, which included Indians, Australians, and Gurkhas.

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-singapore

 

[fmahovalich]

My interest in Sikhs was recently rekindled when I heard that several Sikhs were elected to the House of Commons.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/na...story-in-canada-federal-elections/148783.html

Our new Minister for National Defense is the Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan, a Sikh. Unless our new PM interferes, I have no doubt he will be an excellent minister. He will be featured on CTV W-5 this Saturday.
http://www.canada.ca/en/government/ministers/harjit-singh-sajjan.html

I have zero .. ZERO.. faith in Sabjan. He was a police officer for 10 years.... Handing out tickets and such. Then he did I think three tours in Afghanistan (Middle East) without distinction. And his first comment upon being named Minister is we need not fear ISIS.

The guy has zero track record, no Military history of depth, and no common sense. All we have is hope with this guy.

 

[Samurai Joey]

I have zero .. ZERO.. faith in Sabjan. He was a police officer for 10 years.... Handing out tickets and such. Then he did I think three tours in Afghanistan (Middle East) without distinction. And his first comment upon being named Minister is we need not fear ISIS.

The guy has zero track record, no Military history of depth, and no common sense. All we have is hope with this guy.

According to the Wikipedia page on him, Sajjan ended his 11 year career with the Vancouver Police Department as a detective with the gang crimes unit and organized crime unit -- sounds to me that to reach that level he would have had to do a lot of more than just handing out tickets and such.

As for his military service in Afghanistan, the Wikipedia page states that Sajjan was awarded Meritorious Service Medal in 2012 for diluting the Taliban's influence in Kandahar province, as well as receiving the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal and the Order of Military Merit award. Further, he was specifically sought after by the commander of US forces in Afghanistan's southern provinces for his intelligence-gathering skills, and joined the US command on his 3rd deployment in 2010 as Special Assistant to Major-General James L. Terry.

So I have no idea how you could possibly say that he served in Afghanistan "without distinction".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harjit_Sajjan

Oh and btw, there are many who would consider Afghanistan to be a part of South Asia or Central Asia, not part of the Middle East (i.e. Western Asia).

 

[T.O.tourist]

He was a police officer for 10 years.... Handing out tickets and such.

I doubt he handed out many tickets as an organized crime investigator and gang crimes detective.

Then he did I think three tours in Afghanistan (Middle East) without distinction.

Yep, no distinction at all
<see Samurai Joey's post above>

, no Military history of depth

I'd say he has a lot more than any of Harper's Ministers of National Defence.

 

[nottyboi]

I doubt he handed out many tickets as an organized crime investigator and gang crimes detective.


Yep, no distinction at all
<see Samurai Joey's post above>


I'd say he has a lot more than any of Harper's Ministers of National Defence.

Hey Harpos potato farmer turned defence minister farmed potatoes with distinction .......lol

 

[fmahovalich]

I stand by my lack of faith in the defense Minister.

Gangs Detective&#55357;&#56860; woohoo. So he chased punks around lower east Vancouver. Not something that helps a resume for a national minister.

And the award in afghan----- big deal--- those are handed out like candy. Distinction while serving would be the likes of General Patton, good war leaders.

Sabjan likely drove a HumVee around the dessert. Now he's strategizing world wars... Or should I say ignoring them (Isis) Harpers may have been bad.... But you would think the smart Liberals might have improved.

 

[mandrill]

A very weak theory for why you stereotyped Indian soldiers by different religious standards. In fact they were all Indians and thus seem equally likely to be pro-independence — absent any other evidence or argument.

In any case my question was how you 'account' for what you identify as religious-group behaviour, singling out Sikhs as 'loyal' while Hindus and Muslims (a full 3/4 of the Army) were disloyal. I think you need to get past religious and ethnic preconceptions if you're going to offer any persuasive reasons.

As to the general issue of 'turning' and getting better treatment than PoWs, the Germans made similar offers in the West and 'turned' English and American PoWs in small numbers, along with much larger numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, Poles and others (French, Dutch, Norwegian and other volunteers) who thought getting shot at and perhaps killed in the name of a New World Order offered better odds than regimes they'd opposed in peacetime. Considering the horrific reputation pre-war Japanese occupiers had earned in China and Korea, getting shot as a Japanese ally instead of starving to death in a camp should have been equally appealing to all.

We can take the numbers as facts; it is your accounting for numbers — turncoats and loyalists both — by religion that I'm asking you to back up.

I think your post is nonsense.

I don't know the breakdown of who signed on with the Japanese. But I do think that the fact of religious affiliation would have been very important. Religion is politics in India - still! Just ask the Sikhs who were hunted down and burned alive by Hindu mobs in Delhi a few years ago while the police stood and cheered.

Both Muslims and Hindus had popular pro independence parties in the 1930's. I do not think that the Sikhs had one. So that alone is a huge difference.

Aside from the above, I think sheer survival had a lot to do with joining the INA. The Japanese committed widespread atrocities in all their occupied territories. The list of murdered is reckoned in the MILLIONS!!! The likelihood of being bayoneted - or worse - if you refused the kind offer of fighting the British was pretty high.

These would have been professional soldiers, not lawyers or journalists from the cities. They would not have been politicized and they would have had regimental loyalties. This would apply to all the Indian soldiers. It would have taken direct pressure to get them to switch allegiance and then a lot of coercive "re education" to politicize them.

Exactly the same with the Muslim North African soldiers captured by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu.