Subhas Chandra Bose, INA, and the Final Blow to British Rule in India
The Indian freedom struggle witnessed several waves of resistance, but few had as electrifying an impact as the rise of Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army (INA). Though Bose’s audacious campaign and the cascading effects of the INA Trials shook the very foundation of British authority. It was not just a military endeavor but a psychological and political revolution that set the stage for India’s final push for freedom. The trials, followed by the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) mutiny and labor uprisings, culminated in a mass awakening that eventually forced the British to retreat. This article explores how Bose and INA became the proverbial last nail in the coffin for the British Raj.
Bose and the Birth of the Indian National Army (INA)
Subhas Chandra Bose, a charismatic nationalist leader and former president of the Indian National Congress, broke away from Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent path, believing that only armed struggle could dislodge the British. During World War II, Bose sought international alliances, famously stating:
“ Freedom is not given, it is taken.” — Subhas Chandra Bose
He formed the INA in collaboration with Imperial Japan, using Indian POWs from the British Army captured in Southeast Asia. His call to arms, “Give me blood, and I will give you freedom,” became one of the most iconic slogans in India’s freedom movement.
With the rallying cry of “Chalo Dilli” (On to Delhi), Bose and the INA fought alongside the Japanese in the Burma campaign. Though militarily defeated, the INA’s march ignited a wave of patriotism across India. Bose had also established a government-in-exile, the Azad Hind Government, which was recognized by several Axis powers.
Notably, the INA had its own currency, stamps, court, and civil code—further symbolizing sovereignty. More than its battlefield success, it was the symbolism and psychological warfare of the INA that rattled the British. The idea that Indian soldiers—once the backbone of the British military—could rise against their colonial masters shook the empire’s confidence.
“ Freedom is not given, it is taken.” — Subhas Chandra Bose
Legacy of Bose and INA: A Silent Revolution
Though Subhas Chandra Bose is sometimes portrayed as a military failure, his legacy is far greater. He planted the idea that freedom could be taken, not just negotiated. The INA uniforms, songs like “Kadam Kadam Badhaye Ja,” and the tales of bravery inspired generations of Indians. More than Gandhi’s peaceful satyagraha or Nehru’s diplomacy, Bose gave Indians the hope that they could fight, resist, and win.
The INA recruited over 40,000 soldiers, including women like Captain Lakshmi Sahgal, who led the Rani of Jhansi Regiment—one of the world’s first female combat units. This progressive vision of gender equality in a revolutionary army was unique in its time and made Bose even more popular among the Indian masses.
READ MORE
The INA Trials and the Firestorm of Nationalist Sentiment
In late 1945, the British made a critical miscalculation by deciding to court-martial captured INA officers at the Red Fort in Delhi. The trial of Colonel Prem Sahgal, Colonel Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon, and Major Shah Nawaz Khan became a national spectacle.
Rather than alienate the INA from the masses, the trials generated nationwide sympathy. Political leaders, cutting across ideological lines—from Jawaharlal Nehru to Sardar Patel and C. Rajagopalachari—defended the INA soldiers publicly. The Congress organized massive rallies, students boycotted classes, and workers walked off jobs. The entire country seemed to rally behind the INA, making the British rethink their approach.
The trials transformed INA officers into national heroes, and for the first time since the Revolt of 1857, Indians saw military defiance against British rule as legitimate and even glorious.
The Royal Indian Navy (RIN) Mutiny: An Armed Rebellion
The impact of the INA saga extended beyond civilian life and seeped into the military. On February 18, 1946, nearly 20,000 sailors of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied against British officers aboard HMIS Talwar in Bombay. Inspired by the INA and fed up with racial discrimination, poor pay, and bad food, the ratings declared a strike and took control of several ships and shore establishments.
They raised the Indian tricolor alongside the British Union Jack and chanted slogans of “Jai Hind” and “Netaji Zindabad.” The mutiny quickly spread to Karachi, Calcutta, and Vizag. Though the Congress and Muslim League both distanced themselves from the uprising (fearing anarchy), the message was clear: the Indian armed forces were no longer loyal to the Crown.
It took days and the intervention of Indian leaders like Sardar Patel to bring the mutiny to an end. But the damage to British prestige was done.
Supporting Uprisings: The Air Force and Workers’ Strikes
The mutiny inspired smaller revolts within the Royal Indian Air Force and triggered strikes by dock workers, railwaymen, and postal staff in major cities. The solidarity displayed by civilians and military personnel alike suggested that a pan-Indian rebellion was brewing, one the British could no longer control.
According to the Indian Express archives, February–March 1946 saw more than 100 strikes in Bombay alone, mostly in support of the naval mutineers.
British Realization: Commissions and Internal Panic
The British response included commissions of inquiry into the INA and the naval mutinies, but these were widely perceived as face-saving measures. The deep unrest within the armed forces, once considered the most dependable pillar of British rule, was an alarming red flag for British intelligence and administration.
Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, the Commander-in-Chief, warned the government that if another trial of INA men was held, the army might revolt. This was unprecedented.
“ The Indian Army is no longer a reliable instrument for maintaining British rule.” – Confidential British intelligence memo (1946, British National Archives)
Clement Attlee, Labour Party, and the Winds of Change
The political landscape in Britain itself was shifting. In 1945, Winston Churchill’s Conservative Party lost to the Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee. The economic exhaustion after World War II and mounting pressure in India made Attlee increasingly convinced that Britain could no longer hold onto India.
Significantly, in 1956, during a visit to India, Attlee reportedly had a private conversation with Justice P.B. Chakrabarty, the then Acting Governor of Bengal and former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. When asked about the real reasons behind the British decision to leave India, Attlee remarked that Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA had shaken the loyalty of the Indian Army, which was the cornerstone of British control in India. According to Chakrabarty’s account, Attlee said the British feared another military rebellion like the one during the INA trials and the naval mutiny.
When asked about Mahatma Gandhi’s role, Attlee is said to have smiled and remarked with a tone of dismissal:
“ Minimal.”
This candid statement underscores how the British establishment viewed the threat posed by the INA and the potential collapse of loyalty within the armed forces as far more decisive than Gandhi’s nonviolent campaigns at that critical juncture. While Gandhi’s long-term influence in mobilizing the masses is undisputed, Attlee’s words reveal that it was the fear of losing control over the military, not mass civil disobedience, that ultimately led to the British decision to quit India.
Lord Mountbatten and the Hasty Exit
In early 1947, Lord Louis Mountbatten was appointed the last Viceroy of India. His brief was clear: ensure an orderly British withdrawal. Mountbatten moved swiftly, and the Indian Independence Act was passed in July 1947. India was granted independence on August 15, 1947, with a hastily drawn plan for Partition.
While many factors contributed to the British exit—economic strain, political pressure, and global opinion—it is clear that the INA and the mutinies within the Indian armed forces had fundamentally altered the equation. The British could no longer rely on Indian soldiers to suppress Indians.
Geopolitical Shifts and the Urgency of British Withdrawal
While internal rebellions like the INA uprising and the RIN mutiny rocked the British Empire from within, it’s essential to understand how global geopolitics after World War II further compelled Britain to relinquish control over India. The world order had changed dramatically between 1939 and 1945, and the British Empire, once the most powerful in the world, now stood financially crippled, diplomatically isolated, and militarily dependent.
a. Britain’s Economic Ruin After WWII
World War II had devastated the British economy. London was bombed, trade routes were disrupted, and the country had borrowed heavily from the United States. By the war’s end, Britain was essentially bankrupt, and running its empire had become an unsustainable financial burden. India, once the “jewel in the crown,” had turned into a costly liability.
The Sterling Crisis of 1947 further worsened Britain’s position. With a drained treasury and growing pressure to rebuild its war-torn infrastructure, the British government simply could not afford to hold on to India any longer.
b. Superpower Pressure and Anti-Colonial Winds
The emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers created global pressure against colonialism. The U.S. advocated decolonization, while Britain feared India could fall into Soviet influence, especially amidst rising communist uprisings like the Telangana rebellion.
c. Global Anti-Imperialist Sentiment
The newly formed United Nations amplified anti-imperial voices. American President Roosevelt, and later Truman, made it clear that empires had no place in the post-war world. Britain was diplomatically isolated in defending colonial rule.
d. Decolonization Was Sweeping the Empire
With revolts simmering in Burma, Palestine, Egypt, and Africa, holding on to India meant risking empire-wide collapse. A quick transfer of power was a strategic retreat to preserve Britain’s broader interests.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s BBC Interview: A Different Take on Gandhi and the British Exit
In 1955, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution and a towering intellectual, was interviewed by the BBC. In the interview, Ambedkar offered a blunt and contrarian view on Gandhi’s role and the British departure.
When asked about the British decision to leave India, Ambedkar replied:
“ My own view is that Gandhi was all the time double-dealing. He kept one thing in the public and another thing in private. Gandhi always said that he was against the partition of India, but I know for certain that he was the man who had in the first instance accepted it.”
Ambedkar went further and said that it was not the Quit India Movement, but the INA and the military unrest that finally forced Britain to exit:
“ The British quit India for one reason only—the loyalty of the Indian Army was in doubt after Subhas Chandra Bose and his INA. If the British had to rule India by the sword, and if the sword was turning against them, then there was no point in staying.”
This perspective aligns with Clement Attlee’s later private admission and offers a striking convergence of views from two politically opposite figures—the former Prime Minister of Britain and the Dalit revolutionary of India.
Ambedkar’s interview shattered many nationalist myths and highlighted the real politics behind Indian independence—an outcome of a shifting global order, declining empire, and the terrifying realization that the Indian soldier was no longer loyal to the Raj.
Conclusion: The Final Nail in the Coffin
The INA did not defeat the British militarily, but defeated their moral right to rule. The following trials, mutinies, and labor unrest were symptoms of a dying empire, no longer feared and increasingly despised. Subhas Chandra Bose, the INA, and the waves of rebellion in 1945–46 delivered the final, fatal jolt to British imperialism in India. The empire that had ruled for nearly two centuries now saw its most loyal servants—the Indian soldiers—turn into rebels. And in that moment, the British realized: the jewel in the crown was slipping from their hands forever.
Sources/References
- British National Archives: Records on INA Trials and Naval Mutiny
- BBC Interview with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1955)
- Justice P.B. Chakrabarty’s statement published in The Statesman, 1956
- “The Transfer of Power in India, 1945–47” – Nicholas Mansergh
- Netaji: Collected Works, Vol. 12, Netaji Research Bureau
- “India’s Struggle for Independence” – Bipan Chandra
