Who, I wonder, started the doctrine which is obtaining such
mischievous currency, that the subject-races of the Empire have refused to fight for it because of the shocking way in which we have maladministered them in the past? The commonest contrast is between the Malays and the Filipinos, the heroic achievements of the latter being ascribed to the fact that America had promised them independence in 1946 (would their valour have been pro- portionately reduced if the date were 1956?) ; but downtrodden India is often a favourite illustration of the thesis, too. The facts about Malaya are that nine-tenths of the territory through which the Japanese drove southwards from the Thailand frontiers con- sist of States under British protection, enjoying autonomy under their own rulers, and neither demanding nor desiring any other status. As for India, where recruits have been offering themselves in immense numbers and the army is only limited by the equip- ment at present available, have any troops in any theatre—in Ethiopia, in Libya, in Burma—acquitted themselves with more conspicuous gallantry, or won higher tributes from commanders like Wavell and Auchinleck, than Indian ground forces and Indian airmen? The doctrine that Indians will not fight because they are being called on to fight for British imperialism (or perhaps capitalism) may have its attractions, but doctrines are the better for being kept in some relation with fact. * * * *
Previous page
