Should We Celebrate World War I ?



Comic strip on the war

The War to end all Wars  - That is how leaders of that era sold the war to people at large !  It did not of course, end all wars. Not even in Europe where it was largely fought. 

This is a year when many people around the globe are celebrating the memory of that war. However, as nations pay homage and hold grand ceremonies to commemorate the `Great War' and the generation which fought it, many forget the reasons why the war  was fought in the first place.

Was it about naval rivalry? National Pride? Naked German aggression ? The inherent conflict between European royalty, all of whom were closely related to each other, triggered by the assassination of one of them in distant Sarajevo ?

All these were certainly factors, but the underlying reason for most wars are economic. The First World War too was no different. The war in truth, was a conflict over the spoils of colonialism.

The first world war was preceded by a mad scramble  to occupy Africa. All European powers joined in the race to claim bits and pieces of the `Dark Continent' with its immense riches. The major European powers had already carved up the Americas and much of Asia in the centuries before and in the process increased the per capita income of their citizens manifold. This was the last habitable bit of Earth which could be had to add to Imperial `estates.' In this battle for land and influence, as first movers, France and Great Britain, had an advantage over late comers like Germany and Austria and that triggered the tensions which transformed into a World War. 

The rivalry between the two camps – newly arrived Germany and land-locked Austria-Hungary  on the one hand and older sea-borne colonial powers – was not just for colonies, but also colonial trade, trade routes and privileges.

An insight into the scramble for colonies can be had from the two Moroccan crisis which occurred  just before the Great War began –

In 1904, France had concluded a secret treaty with Spain partitioning Morocco and agreeing not to oppose Britain’s moves in Egypt in exchange for a free hand in the till then independent kingdom of Morocco.  The next year, German emperor Wilhelm II visited Tangier and declared for Morocco’s independence, not really in support of an oppressed people, but because he wanted to parley with fellow European kings over colonial rights and needed a bargaining chip.

This `First Moroccan Crisis’, was resolved in January–April 1906 at the Algeciras Conference, where German economic rights in the region were upheld, while the French and Spanish were entrusted with the policing of Morocco.

The World Carved Up Among European Powers

The Second Moroccan Crisis sparked in 1911,  when the German gunboat Panther was sent to Agadir  ostensibly to protect German interests during a local uprising in Morocco but in reality to cow the French. This “Agadir Incident” sparked a flurry of war talk during that year, but international negotiations continued, and the crisis averted with the conclusion of a convention in November 1911, by which France became `protector' of Morocco and, in return, Germany was given strips of territory from the French Congo. Obviously, the local people were never consulted when they were bought or sold!

Map of the proposed railway

However, the Germans had ambitions further afield, which included nebulous control over the newly found oil wealth of Mesopotamia. A Berlin-Baghdad railway line was planned which could be later extended to Teheran. Germany would be supplied by oil and other supplies from the east, by this railway, while the Ottoman Empire which controlled Baghdad would gain a railway network for quick military mobilization into the Balkans were they were facing up to Russia's expansionist threats. The problem was that a German railway up to Baghdad or Persia, was just a step away from India !

Let me quote the American Orientalist Morris Jastrow, to explain what was at stake : "It was felt in England that if, as Napoleon is said to have remarked, Antwerp in the hands of a great continental power was a pistol leveled at the English coast, Baghdad and the Persian Gulf in the hands of Germany (or any other strong power) would be a 42-centimetre gun pointed at (England's dominion over) India."

Europe readied for war. The older colonial powers – France, England, Russia and Italy to protect their colonies and trading privileges, the newer ones – Germany and Austria, hand in glove with a  threatened tottering power – the Turkish Ottomans, in search of fresh colonies and trade routes. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand  of Austria at Sarajevo by Serbian-Bosnian rebels in 1914, was merely an excuse for the war to begin.

We, Indians, had no say in the war at all. Most Indians wanted only one thing - independence. Not rule by  King George V or by Emperor Wilhelm II. However, without any strong national leadership, Indians joined in the war effort in large numbers for the pay and job opportunity which came their way.  Boys from rural India fought bravely and possibly won the larger part of the war in the Middle East. Damascus, Palestine, Jerusalem, Gaza, Haifa, Kut-Al_Amara, Baghdad, Basra and Tigris, all figure in the battle honours list of the Indian Army. (Lawrence of Arabia and his motley crew of supporting Sheikhs, were considered by many as merely extras in that battle for Arab lands. The real muscle power was mostly Indian.) More than half of the Indian brigade thrown at Gallipoli died in a brave but futile attempt to take on Turkey's brilliant General, Kemal Pasha, side by side with the ANZAC (Australia and New Zealand) troops, though in the national memories of the West, that epic folly of a battle is associated with Australians alone. In all some 65,000 Indian soldiers died fighting the King's war. The Sub-continentals won some 13,000 gallantry medals including 12 Victoria Crosses, the highest gallantry award the British gave to a fighting man.

Recruitment Poster

Quite rightly, we need to celebrate our boys' bravery and mourn those who died. However, should we really celebrate this war which was not ours ? There is after all a distinction to be made in celebrating our own people’s bravery and someone else’s victory.

Neither was the victory ours nor the defeat. It was a white man's war fought also by brown and black boys, who were not allowed to be promoted to officer ranks nor get the same pay or perks that their white brethren received. The 140,000 Indian soldiers rushed to defend France were sent in without adequate winter clothing or footwear ! Despite that they fought and were decisive in the battles of -Ypres, Givenchy, Neuve Chaplle, Festubert and Loos.  Modern medi-care was given to the Indian wounded, but in segregated hospitals on the English coast. Barbed wire surrounded these hospitals and sepoys were not allowed into town un-chaperoned ! Even in matters of food they were discriminated.

An Indian soldier’s daily ration during the Great War consisted of :

¹⁄₄ pounds (lb) meat
(Non-meat eaters received 2 ounces of gur (coarse, unrefined sugar made from sugar cane juice) or sugar or 3 ounce (oz) of milk in place of 4 ounces of meat); ¹⁄₈ lb potatoes; ¹⁄₃ oz tea; ¹⁄₂ oz salt; 1 ¹⁄₂ lb atta (raw flour); 4 oz dhal (dried lentils or peas or beans); 2 oz ghee (clarified butter); ¹⁄₆ oz chillies; ¹⁄₆ oz turmeric; ¹⁄₃ oz ginger; ¹⁄₆ oz garlic and 1 oz gur (unrefined sugar)

While  a British soldier received :

1 & 1/4 lb fresh or frozen meat, or 1 lb preserved or salt meat
1 & 1/4 lb bread ; 4 oz. bacon; 3 oz. cheese
5/8 oz. tea; 4 oz. jam ; 3 oz. sugar ; 1/2 oz salt ; 1/36 oz. pepper
1/20 oz. mustard ; 8 oz. fresh or 2 oz. dried vegetables ; 1/10 gill lime juice (if fresh vegetables not issued);
1/2 gill rum (at discretion of commanding general) ; up to 2 oz. tobacco per week (at discretion of commanding general)

Britain is right in celebrating the first World War. It was  indeed her hour of glory. Britain is also right in apportioning some credit (belatedly?) to the 1.4 million Indians who donned the colours to fight for Britain.

This leads me to the logical question, could we  in any way be described as part of the victors' party? I would not hesitate to say `No'. Please remember Indians were not even allowed to enter certain streets and clubs inside India at that time or aspire to most of the higher ranks of service within their own motherland. India's revenues were being used to finance British colonial wars in all parts of the world - ranging from China to Africa and even to the European theatre, without our  agreement, and by beggaring our people in the process. During World War I, Britain stripped India of 3.7 million tonnes of supplies worth 80 million pounds and 146 million pounds of revenues for the war effort, the largest contribution by any country's colony.  To understand the value of that contribution at today's rate multiply the figures by 340 and that gives you the mind-boggling figure of  76.84 billion pounds or Rs 783,760 crore. This happened even as teenagers were being jailed for reciting `Vande Mataram' and hung for fighting for India's freedom. 

Landmarks in our nation's history - the Komagata Maru  incident - happened in May 1914, while - the Jalianwala Bagh massacre - happened in 1919.   Should we not commemorate those sad milestones in India's freedom struggle from Britain, rather than applaud a victory in an European war, which merely deprived us ?

Postscript:

India's First Flying Ace : Indra Lal Roy

First Day Cover to Commemorate India's first flying ace

Indra Lal Roy, India's first ace pilot, was born in Calcutta on 2 December 1898. Despite initial prejudices against him, Roy, a schoolboy at St Paul’s, London,  managed to win a commission in the Royal Flying Corps in 1917, at the young age of 18, within three months of joining the Corps. Credited with 10 kills including 9 in a span of just 14 days over the skies of France, he died a hero in 1918, to be  posthumously awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.

The citation in the London Gazette on 21 September 1918 praised Roy as 'a very gallant and determined officer' whose 'remarkable skill and daring' had enabled him on occasion to shoot down 'two [enemy] machines in one patrol'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------