Thai-Japan Indian Unity and Indian Revolutionaries in Phibul Songkram’s

Thailand
*
Lipi Ghosh

In the 1940s, the idea of Pan-Asianism was a force in Asian countries under western
imperial dominance and colonial rule. Pan-Asianism as a general term refers to a wide
range of ideas and movements that called for the solidarity of Asian peoples to counter
western influences in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Japan, where
Pan-Asianism had a decisive influence on the course of modern history and served as an
ideological justification for military expansionism through 1945, it was referred to as
Asianism or Greater Asianism. As an ideology, Pan-Asianism held that Asian countries
and peoples shared similar values and histories and should be united politically or
culturally.

During this period, the activities of Indian revolutionaries abroad were quite vigorous and
influenced by the spirit of Pan-Asianism. Thailand, which was under Japanese influence,
extended strong support to resident Indian revolutionaries, who were able to pursue anti-
colonial projects and ventures in that country. This paper asks whether this support was
due to Thai initiative or Japanese compulsion to help Indian revolutionary activity. The
paper also compares two colossal leaders of the age – Subhas Chandra Bose and Phibul
Songkram – in the context of Pan-Asian nationalism and discusses the nature of the
policies they proposed for their countries.

Japan’s Pan-Asian Nationalism

Although it gathered momentum in the 1940s, the idea of pan Asianism in Japan began in
the 1870s as part of the effort to catch up with the West and was spurred on by the defeat
of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Soon after, other Asian nations began
to regard Japan with admiration. In the 1930s and 1940s, the ideology emerged as part of
a propaganda campaign against European and U.S. imperialism and in support of Japan’s
own imperialist “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.”i As used by the government
and military of Imperial Japan, it represented the desire to create a self-sufficient “bloc of
Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers.” As such, Pan-Asianism
would be interpreted differently for different Asian nations. According to the Japanese
War Research Institute, “there was the prospect of independence in consideration of
military and economic requirements and of the historical and political elements particular
to each area.”ii
 2

The term “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” is remembered today largely as a
euphemism for the Japanese control of Southeast Asian countries during World War II. It
was an Imperial Japanese Army concept which originated with General Hachiro Arita, a
minister of foreign affairs and army ideologist. The idea was formally announced by
Foreign Minister Matsuoka Yosuke on August 1, 1940, but had existed in various forms
for many years. Western historians have traced Japanese leaders’ long interest in the idea,
attributing its attraction to the desire to extend Japanese power and acquire an empire
based on European models, though ostensibly to free Asia from imperialism.

Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper have analyzed the story of the Japanese advance in
terms of Pan-Asianism:

Much more than with old British Crescent, war impelled the Japanese to
draw these diverse lands into a unified system. A blueprint for this had
emerged after 1940: the ‘Greater East Asia Co- Prosperity Sphere’, a
regional system with Japan as its nucleus governed by the spirit of hakko
ichiu, i.e. eight corners of the world under one roof.iii

Japan’s Ministry for Colonization was organized in 1929 to oversee the territories Japan
would acquire in its expansionist efforts. In 1942, the Ministry of Colonization became
the Ministry of Greater East Asia, by which time it oversaw not only Japanese territory in
China and Manchuria, but also much of Southeast Asia and many Pacific Islands. The
political and administrative responsibilities of this institution extended from the Aleutians
to the Salomon Islands, from Wake Island to Burma and the Andamans.

By early 1942, Japan wanted to recruit an army from British Indian troops who had
become prisoners of war in Southeast Asia. The intention was to place officers and
soldiers of the British Indian Army who were prepared to fight Great Britain under one
Indian organization to be controlled by Japan. This organization was founded in April
1942 as the All Malayan Indian Independence League.iv Japan counted on the political
and financial support of the Indian minority in Singapore, Malaysia, and Burma.
However, it was not until the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose in Southeast Asia in spring
of 1943 that the unit became organized; it was thus ineffective from the perspective of
the Japanese war machine.v

Phibul Songkram and the New Thai Nationalism in the Context of Japan’s Pan-
Asianism

In 1932, the Siamese coup d’état transformed the government from an absolute to a
constitutional monarchy. In 1938 Field Marshal Phibul Songkram replaced Phraya
Phahol as prime minister and consolidated his position by ousting royalists and
promulgating a constitution that subjugated the monarch to the common law. He began
increasing the pace of modernization and, through manipulation of the mass media,
fashioned a new regime with ultra-nationalism as its central theme.
 3

Phibul is believed to have been tremendously influenced by Luang Wichit Wathakan’s

idea of nationalism. Wichit Wathakan was a prominent Thai intellectual who defined the
“Thai nation” and “Thai-ness” from the 1930s to the 1950s. His concepts responded to
numerous changes and serious problems during that period, and many of his ideas have
remained central to mainstream Thai thought up to the present. Wichit Wathakan and
Phibul concurred in the belief that it was imperative that Thailand “herself become a
superpower” and expand her territory by first reclaiming lands from the Western imperial
powers.

A Pan-Thai movement was part of this effort. It aimed to uplift the national spirit and
moral code of the nation and instill progressive tendencies and a newness into Thai life
through a series of cultural mandates issued by the government. These mandates required
all Thais to salute the flag, know the new national anthem (written by Wichit Wathakan),
and use the national (i.e., Bangkok) language rather than local dialects. People were
encouraged to adopt western attire as opposed to the traditional topless style of Thai men
and women (see Figure 1). In 1939, Phibul changed the country’s name from Siam to
Thailand. In 1941, as World War II loomed on the horizon, he decreed January 1 the
official start of the new year instead of the traditional April 1. In Phibul’s view, all these
were necessary for Thailand to strip away the foreign idea that Thailand was
undeveloped and barbaric. We can term his development program as a policy of New
Nationalism. His regime also embarked upon a course of economic nationalism, in which
the Thai people were to support only Thai products and therefore destroy the Chinese
hold on markets. In a speech in 1938, Wichit Wathakan compared the Chinese in Siam to
the Jews in Germany.

The Japanese occupation of Thailand is thus an interesting aspect of Japan’s expansion

across Asia. (During the war, the Japanese made Thailand their military base for strikes
against Burma and, through Malaya, to Singapore and the Netherlands East Indies.) By
the 1930s, a significant element of the Thai military elite embraced the pan-Asian dream.
They saw in alliance with Japan the prospect of realizing the goal of a greater Thailand,
particularly through the recapture of territories which had been lost to the French in Indo-
China and the British in Malaya.vi Further, Thailand had never been a colony of the West,
and the Japanese imperial revival of the Meiji era had captivated the imagination of the
reforming kings of the Chakri dynasty. Phibul was by this time in conformity with Wichit
Wathakan, who envisioned the form of “Greater Thailand” as including a large part of
Indo-China and Malaya, a part of southern Burma, the whole of the Shan States, and the
southern part of Yunnan.vii Wichit Wathakan reasoned thus:

Why do I insist on imitating Japan? My answer is that Japan and Thailand

are both Asian nations. If there is a question about who to follow, I believe
it is best to follow Japan. Presently we have our king under the
constitution and so does Japan. We are both Orientals. Most Japanese
people are Buddhists and so are most of us. …. more of the Japanese
methods are likely to be more practical and effective than those of
Western nations.viii
 4

When Japanese troops entered Thailand, Wichit Wathakan drafted a Plea for Peace on
September 1, 1941, emphasizing that belief in Buddhism persuaded Thais to “unite
spiritually in order to maintain world peace” and that “Lord Buddha's teachings, which
had been instilled in the minds of Thais for two thousand years, made Thais show mercy
to all fellow human beings and aim to maintain peace throughout the world.”ix

There is no doubt that the Greater Thailand or Pan-Thai ideal, fostered by the anti-British
and pro-Japanese element of Pan-Asian nationalism, deeply entered certain circles of the
Thai army and navy. In my view, Thailand’s new civilizational discourse and its links to
Pan Asianism was strongly adopted by Phibul. Pan Asianism, to Phibul, had the rare
feature of mastering the nationalist characteristic of western civilization while
accommodating the particular national characteristics of Thai civilization. By launching a
new nationalist policy, Phibul attempted to bring the Thai people up to the same
civilizational level of the west; when he decided to open entry to Japan, it showed his
faith in Japan’s concept of Pan-Asianism. He wanted to apply the discourse of
civilization at the level of a widespread social movement which would result in the
intellectual as well as political upheaval of the Thais. He wanted a kind of interplay
between Thai civilization and world civilization, and he considered Pan-Asian to be the
best tool to make the Thais free of Western dominance and to take the highest
civilizational platform. Thus Japan’s expansionist movement was welcomed by Phibul
on the grounds that Japan was the most viable force among the Asians to build up a
community feeling of One Asia. Here it is appropriate to apply Prasenjit Duara’s theory
of redemptive societies and civilizational discourse. Like many leaders, Phibul believed
that an East Asian regime committed to their vision of civilization was preferred to a
national regime hostile to their goals. In that way, a redemptive Thai society cooperated
with the Japanese.

Phibul did not enjoy the undivided support of his countrymen in this alliance with Japan.
One Japanese document of the time recorded that some Thais living abroad disapproved
of their government collaborating with the Japanese. In the United States, a number of
Siamese, under the leadership of the Thai minister to Washington, offered their services
to the American forces. Similarly in England, about forty students enrolled in the British
army with the assistance of Nai Nani Sanasen of the staff of the Washington legation.
However, these people were few in number and constituted the banished elements from
the kingdom after the revolution of 1932.x Thus one remarkable feature of the age was
the prevailing pro-Japanese atmosphere in Thailand which created a favorable ambiance
for Indian revolutionaries in the land.

Early Indian Revolutionary Activity in Bangkok

India had historically maintained a cultural identity in Southeast Asia, including the
spread of her two religious wings, Buddhism and Hinduism, which, unlike Christianity
and Islam, were not associated with military ambition.xi So traditionally, India
maintained peaceful and harmonious relations with Southeast Asia. By the end of the
 5

nineteenth century, India's independence movement had gained momentum, and the
congenial atmosphere of the region inspired Indian revolutionaries to make it an
epicenter of overseas nationalist activities. Many initially went to Malaya and Singapore,
but as these were under British control, some later moved to Thailand, a country free
from colonial dominance. Moreover, anti-British feeling was very strong in Thailand
after 1909, when “the Thais had been forced to cede four states – Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan
and Trengganu – to the British.” By the time the First World War broke out in August
1914, “some of the revolutionary groups had already established small but active cells in
places as far apart as Rangoon and Shanghai….The Sikh temples (gurdwaras) provided
convenient meeting places and cell headquarters for the groups in Shanghai, Hongkong,
Swatow, Canton , Bangkok , Rangoon and other major cities.”xii

Bangkok became an important center of Indian revolutionary activities in 1912, when

two emissaries of the Yugantar group, Bholanath Chatterjee and Nanilal Bose, brought
the message of revolution to the Indians of Thailand. The former took up employment in
the Bangkok water works, while the latter joined the Buddhist Institute as a novice.
Lawyers like Kumud Mukherjee and traders like Buddha Sangha Narula, Thakur Singh,
and Lodha Singh established contact with them. The gurdwara at Phahurat in Bangkok
was their main center of activities, from which they made contacts with the German
legation and German engineers, like Doering, as well as Indian workers of the Bangkok-
Penang Railway, including Amar Singh, Beni Dubey, and Arya Singh (to name the most
active). Diwan Chand, the elder brother of famous Bangkok industrialist Siv Nath Rai
Bajaj, Chaturlal, and Ganpath Pai also soon joined their group. According to the Director
General of Intelligence, India, “in October 1914, Dr. Varentzsch, the former German
Consul at Hong Kong, was sent to Bangkok with DM 100,000 to take charge of
preparations in Thailand in connection with the organization of a revolt in India” (report
of August 12, 1915). Special arrangement were made by three Indian business groups in
Thailand for carrying secret correspondence and financial transactions, and the following
few months saw an unprecedented increase in the number of guns imported into
Thailand. By January 1915, the German legation in Shanghai became the controlling
headquarters of Indian activities in East Asia with Bangkok as the advance base. Nearly
five hundred armed men had been collected in Thailand, and in May six revolutionaries,
including Sohanlal Pathak and Ram Singh, had entered Burma for preparatory work.

The freedom movement activities were disrupted when the army ship Henry S., coming
from Manila, was captured and details of Indo-German activities in East Asia were
exposed. The Thai government was alerted by the British Legation, and on August 1,
most of the Indian activists, including the newcomers, were put behind bars. Sohanlal
Pathak and Ram Singh were arrested on August 15 and 19, respectively, and this put an
end to Indian militant activities in Thailand. Buddha Sing Narula, Sohanlal Pathak, and
Ram Singh were hanged while Amar Singh was transported for life to Andaman whence
he emerged in 1934 to play a significant role in Thailand during World War II.xiii Thus
the first phase of Indian revolutionary activities in Thailand had a negative end.
 6

In 1929, Prafulla Kumar Sen alias Swami Satyananda Puri arrived in Thailand at the
suggestion of Rabindranath Tagore. A former revolutionary in Bengal who had taught
Oriental Philosophy at Calcutta University and at Santiniketan, the Swami's influence re-
animated the Indian community in Thailand with patriotic thoughts for their motherland.
Initially, the Swami stayed at the modest Hindu Sabha. In October 1940, he opened a
small centre named Ashom Thai Bharata (Thai Bharat Cultural Lodge). The Swami
learnt to read and write the Thai language remarkably well in only a few months. From
the ashram he started publishing a newsletter in Thai, which drew the attention of the
Thai elite, including the royal family.xiv

From 1930 to 1933, several events occurred which had enormous consequences for
Indians living in Thailand. Following the Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1931 and
the Chinese boycott of Japanese goods, the placid life of Indians in Thailand was stirred
again by revolutionary emissaries and developments. As Swami Satyananda Puri had
already cemented bonds of friendship between the Thai and Indian people, it was quite
easy for him to carry on political propaganda for the liberation of India.xv In 1936, a five-
men secret committee was founded by Swami Satyananda Puri and Giyan Pritam Singh
to promote India's cause in the critical days ahead. Others on the committee were Amar
Singh, Chand Singh, and Narain Sinh Chawla. Kushal Singh, Harman Singh, and
Manohar Singh joined them later. In 1939, Narain Singh was sent to acquaint like-
minded leaders of Indian National Congress of the work being done in Thailand.

It is quite clear that Thailand was a peaceful haven for early Indian revolutionaries under
the indirect political protection of the Thai government. We do not have any evidence of
direct revolutionary links with Thai leaders, but the Thai government never banned any
Indian revolutionary, either at the individual or the institutional level. Rather, the Thai
Bharat Cultural Lodge gradually developed as a meeting place for Indian revolutionaries
and the Thai intelligentsia. It steadily developed activities relating to contemporary
cultural and political aspirations. By importing and promoting Indian philosophy,
language, and ideology to Thai society under the inspiration of Swami Satyanada Puri,
the nationalist flavor of early Indian revolutionaries took shape.

War and the Second Generation of Indian Revolutionary Activity in Thailand

By 1939, with the growing prospect of war in Southeast Asia, a sense of uneasiness
emerged in the Indian community. Apprehensive Indians began to transfer part of their
holdings back to the subcontinent as a precaution. Family members, usually women and
children, were also sent back.xvi When restrictions were put in place to prevent the
movement of Indians in Thailand, the community turned to Swami Satyanada Puri for
advice. The opening of the Thai Bharat Cultural Lodge had increased the Swami's
standing with senior Thai officials and members of the royal family. Due to his integrity
and standing, he was able to meet with Prime Minister Phibul to ask him to clarify the
position of Indians in the event of war. The prime minister assured the Swami that
Indians would face no difficulties or problems as far as the Thai government was
concerned. He was also assured that the Japanese intended them no harm, provided the
 7

Indians did not interfere with their “work.”Any Indian who obtained a permit from the
Thai Bharat Cultural Lodge could travel freely within the borders of Thailand. The
Swami was given full authority to issue the necessary permits, thus providing great
privileges to the Indian community. He then changed the name of the lodge to the Indian
National Council. The building was the same but its role had shifted from a cultural one
to a political one. The Council was inaugurated in the grand hall of the Silpakorn Theatre
by the Thai Foreign Minister on December 23, 1941.xvii The Japanese then officially
announced their commitment to assisting the Indian people in their struggle for
independence from Britain.

The National Council soon emerged as a centre of Indian nationalist activities. In 1941 a
meeting was held under the leadership of Rashbehari Bose to organize an army in
Southeast Asia to fight the British. Among the revolutionaries living in Thailand in 1941
were two remarkable people: Giani Pritam Singh, a devout Sikh who arrived in Bangkok
in 1933 after the suppression of the civil disobedience movement in India, and Baba
Amar Singh, an Indian freedom fighter who had been in detention for 22 years in the
dreaded Andaman Jail. According to British intelligence records, Pritam Singh contacted
the Japanese embassy in Bangkok in June 1941. Later on, along with Bhagwan Singh and
15 supporters, he was sent to the Thai-Malaya border and given the duty of broadcasting
Japanese propaganda through loudspeakers to the front lines of British Indian troops.
Sardar Kishan Singh, Babu Sudershan Singh, and Bhagwan Singh were asked to cross
into Malaya to reach the Indian soldiers serving in the British Indian Army.xviii

Japan’s policy in Southeast Asia focused on ethnic division. While it treated the Chinese
very poorly, Japan was relatively committed to gaining the support of the Indian minority
that included more than three million people in East and Southeast Asia.xix In fact, The
Japanese had been secretly dealing with the Indians in Thailand for some time. Hikari
Kikan, the Japanese-Indian liaison group under Colonel Yamamoto, used undercover
agents posing as businessmen to infiltrate the Indian community and then extended all
sorts of collaboration as a matter of mutual interest. The Japanese insisted on the
acceptance of Rashbehari Bose, then living in Japan, as head of the Indian independence
movement in Southeast Asia. Rashbehari Bose formed the Indian Independence League
(IIL) in May 1942, choosing Bangkok as its headquarters. Captain Mohan Singh was
responsible for the formation of the Indian National Army (INA) in September 1942; it
was made up of Indian recruits from the region.xx

Rashbehari Bose convened a meeting at Tokyo in March 1942 to discuss the preparation
of the first Bangkok Conference of the Indian Independence League in June 1942.
Unfortunately, on the way from Bangkok to Tokyo, the plane carrying Swami
Satyananda Puri, Giani Pritam Singh, Baba Amar Singh, and Captain Mohammad Akram
crashed in Taiwan on March 24, killing all of them.xxi Rashbehari Bose arrived back in
Bangkok in April, accompanied by Anand Mohan Sahay, Deshpandey, and others. The
Bangkok Conference of 1942 started on June 15, under the chairmanship of Rashbehari
Bose at Silpakorn Theatre.xxii The conference was widely attended by representatives of
Malaya, Burma, Japan, Borneo, Thailand, Manchuria, Nanking, Shanghai, Canton, Hong
 8

Kong, Manila, and Indochina. Diplomats from the Japanese, German, and Italian
embassies were present. Krishna Bose confirms the Japanese ambassador as Mr.
Subokami, the German ambassador as Dr. Wendler, and the Italian ambassador as Mr.
Gruido Crol.xxiii The conference was inaugurated by Thai Assistant Foreign Secretary Mr.
Vichitra Vadkorn. Thai Prime Minister Phibul sent a note praying for the success of the
conference and the establishment of a Free India. The Japanese prime minister, General
Tojo, also sent a note promising help to free India: “Japan is quite prepared to give her
unstinted support as it has been announced from time to time and I might add the Axis
Powers are ready to cooperate in according their full support.” The Japanese Foreign
Minister also declared that “Japan has no desire whatever towards India except to see her
realize the restoration of freedom.”xxiv

Thirty-five resolutions were adopted at the conference, “steps to be taken to initiate

freedom movement among Indians.” One called for the establishment of branches of the
Indian Independence League in every corner of Southeast Asia. One aimed to unite
Indian soldiers scattered around the region under the command of Captain Mohan Singh,
with the cost of the army and responsibility for recruitment and supply to be borne by the
League. Japanese help would be sought for arms, ammunition, and other equipment.xxv A
Council of Action was set up, which “should have general superintendence and control
over all branches of IIL … and over the INA.”xxvi

The most important resolution read, “This Conference requests Sj. Subhas Chandra Bose
to be kind enough to come to East Asia and it also appeals to the Imperial Govt. of Japan
to use its good offices to obtain the necessary permission and conveniences from the
Govt. of Germany to enable Sj. Subhas Chandra Bose to reach East Asia safe.”xxvii Many
Indians in Thailand and Southeast Asia had become disillusioned with Rashbehari Bose's
leadership and were eager for the movement to be handed over to revolutionary Subhas
Chandra Bose (popularly referred to as Netaji), who had left India in 1941 to work from
Germany.

The Politics of the INA in Thailand: The Emergence of Subhas Chandra Bose

It was politics in Thailand which led to the emergence of Subhas Chandra Bose in
Southeast Asia. As early as February 1942, Swami Satyananda Puri tried to contact
Netaji in Germany. Netaji's voice on the Azad Hind radio station from Berlin had made
his name a legend among many Indians in Thailand. The Swami was quite sure that
Netaji would inspire and build confidence among members of the Indian National
Council. The Japanese, however, stood by their man Rashbehari Bose and clearly
disliked the Swami's promotion of Netaji; the Swami's Indian National Council and the
IIL were now at loggerheads. Naturally enough, when the Swami and his colleagues were
killed on the way to Tokyo, a permanent suspicion of the Japanese crept into the minds of
the Indians in Thailand, especially since no enquiry was announced and none of the
bodies were ever found. The Japanese, however, suffered a setback when Rashbehari's
IIL failed to enthuse Indians to join the war on the side of the Japanese. Finally, Netaji
was called in to take over responsibility from Rashbehari Bose on July 4, 1943.
 9

Bose’s past vision of Japan and Pan-Asian nationalism may help explain Japan’s
suspicion of him. As early as 1936, he addressed the rapid Japanese expansion in Asia
and proved more supportive of China:

There is another aspect of the Indian question. Many are concerned at the rapid
expansion of Japanese imperialism in Asia. It is necessary for us to think of the
means of preventing the growth of Japanese imperialism in Asia. If tomorrow
China could be strong and united, if tomorrow India could be free, I am sure it
would influence the balance of power in Asia and serve to check the spread of
Japanese imperialism. It is therefore our duty to support the Anti-imperialist
movements in Asia, China and India. To check Japan will strengthen the anti-
imperialist movements all over the world.xxviii

In 1938, Rashbehari Bose wrote to Subhas Chandra Bose that

the Congress should support the Pan-Asian movement. It should not condemn
Japan without understanding her motive in the Sino-Japanese conflict. Japan is a
friend of India and other Asiatic countries. Her chief motive is to destroy British
influence in Asia. ….. The Congress ought to have a world outlook. …. the
international situation should be studied and utilized for India’s benefit and
interests. We should make friends with Britain’s enemies… Japan’s fall will vanish
the hope of a regenerated Asia.xxix

By that time Netaji had concluded that “The Overthrow of British power in India, [will]
in its last stages be … assisted by Japanese foreign Policy in the far East…. India is
greatly interested in a pact, which will… enable Japan to move more freely and
confidently towards the South.”xxx In this context, the observation of Anton Pelinka is
important: “Japan of course had begun to use the slogan: ‘Asia to the Asians.’ Bose’s
expectation that Japanese politics would have a positive effect on the cause of Indian
independence was understandable, but in 1940… the Japanese leadership did not make
any attempt to intervene directly in the war against Great Britain on the side of Germany
and Italy.”xxxi

The next important development was the fall of Singapore on February 15, 1942, which
persuaded Netaji to support Japan wholeheartedly. He greeted the fall in his first radio
broadcast: “The fall of Singapore means the collapse of the British Empire, the end of the
iniquitous regime which it has symbolized and the dawn of a new era in Indian
history.”xxxii On 19 March, 1942, note, Netaji asked the Japanese prime minister to
“reassure his countrymen that no Indian should in future allow himself to be duped by
British propaganda.”xxxiii After fighting the Malayan campaign, Japanese forces advanced
into Burma and General Tojo made two historic pronouncements on the Indian problem,
leading Netaji to welcome the Japanese decision to destroy Anglo American imperialism
in the East: “On behalf of the all freedom loving Indians in India and abroad, I offer my
sincere thanks to the Japanese Prime Minister for his outspoken sympathy for Indian
independence.”xxxiv
 10

The British were forced to formulate a new policy for India and on March 11, 1942,
announced the visit of Sir Stafford Cripps to India on behalf of the War Cabinet. The
Cripps Mission failed and following its departure conflicts developed within the
Congress Party over the question of India’s participation in the war and her policy
towards Japan. It is evident that a few Congress leaders hoped to extend support to Japan
and cherished the idea that if India were free, her first step would be to negotiate with
Japan.xxxv Only a day after Tojo’s declaration in Parliament, Bose declared at a prominent
press conference in Tokyo that the war represented an ideological struggle between
supporters and opponents of the status quo. Thus Bose was able to present himself not as
an exiled politician of the third rank due to his colour, but as a partner who was taken
seriously.xxxvi

Towards the end of October, 1942, Netaji was in Tokyo to meet Tojo and attend the
Greater East Asia Conference. Since India technically did not fall within this sphere, he
attended as an observer. He made an impressive speech at the conference, stressing the
creation of a new Asia where all vestiges of colonialism and imperialism would be
eliminated. In a radio broadcast, Netaji said “Singapore, which the British had been
fortifying for the last twenty years, was occupied by the Japanese in seven days. Taking
all these facts into consideration, we can safely say that British are doomed. Indians
should now come into the field and play their part in the crusade against the Anglo-
Americans.”xxxvii The Japanese navy had captured the Andaman and Nicobar islands in
the Bay of Bengal during the early months of war. As a result of Netaji's requests, Prime
Minister Tojo announced at the conference that Japan had decided to place the two
islands under the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government of Free India, thereby giving
it its first sovereignty over a territory. These islands were renamed Shaheed and
Swaraj.xxxviii

By the time Netaji visited Thailand again in late 1945, nationalist feelings in the Indian
community were running high. On July 27, he left Singapore for a 17-day tour of East
and Southeast Asian countries, with the prime objective of enlisting moral and monetary
support for his movement. Netaji appealed to Indians in Bangkok to raise funds for his
Azad Hind government from the many wealthy Indian businessmen of Thailand.xxxix He
was given a rousing reception in Bangkok on August 4 and met the Thai prime minister,
winning the support of the Thai government. At a meeting in Chinese Hall in Suriwong
Road, a crowd of over 3000 Indians gave him a stirring ovation. Netaji inspired people to
pledge money and materials for the INA. Darshan Singh Bajaj, who personally gave
Netaji 95,000 tael that day, and who had a long association with him as the INA’s supply
officer, recalled that “I was only a small donor compared to the others.” Netaji himself
donated money to the hospital and Chulalongkorn University. This act of goodwill won
the hearts of the Thais, which not only led to the Thai government's full support for the
Indian struggle for freedom, but also created an atmosphere of mutual trust and
friendship with the Indians in Thailand for years to come.xl
 11

In his first public address in Thailand on May 21, 1945, Netaji drew on examples from
the history of Turkey and Ireland and urged Indians to fight for their freedom. He noticed
something new that promised a different future: “There is however one silver lining in
the cloud that has over taken us…….the British Indian army is not yet prepared to take
the risk and line up with the revolutionaries.”xli Another visit to Bangkok and Netaji's
memorable anti-British speech before Indians in the packed University Hall at
Chulalongkorn University on August 8, 1945, is still fresh in the minds of the older
generation of Indians.xlii His call for unity among the Indians for the cause of the
motherland and his famous slogans of “Jai Hind” and “Dilli Chalo” had an extraordinary
impact. On the next day, Netaji attended a rally where, according to Japanese documents,
he “embraced more than one thousand Indians.”xliii Netaji united Indians with his genuine
passion and for a while they forgot their differences and donated their time, effort, and
money generously. Young Indian men joined the INA, while young Indian women were
recruited into the Rani of Jhansi Regiment. This perhaps shows the “politics of
personalization” –a term coined by Anton Pelinka.xliv

Netaji then called for a meeting between the senior members of the Indian National
Council and the remnants of the Hikari Kikan-influenced League. He was well aware of
the damaging split and the last thing he needed was discord in the ranks of the Indian
community in Thailand. There were approximately 4500 members of the Indian National
Council in Bangkok at the time of his arrival. At the meeting, Netaji listened to the
different views of the Council and the League. He called upon the two factions to
reconcile and work towards their greater duty of winning India's independence; the two
groups agreed. Netaji established a new structure for the organization and announced that
Isher Singh, formerly of the Rashbehari Bose group, would be the chairman of the IIL in
Bangkok. He also nominated Singh as the official representative of the provisional
government of Indian in Thailand. Pandit Raghunath Sharma was named the territorial
secretary of Thailand.xlv

The INA also fit into Bose’s plan of achieving India’s independence. In his one speech in
Singapore on the occasion of reviewing the army, Netaji said that “throughout my public
career, I have always felt that though India is otherwise ripe for independence in every
way, she has lacked one thing, namely an army of liberation. George Washington of
America could fight and win freedom because he had his army. Garibaldi could liberate
Italy because he had his armed volunteers. It is your privilege and honour to be the first
to come forward and organize India’s national Army. By doing so you have removed the
last obstacle in our path to freedom.”xlvi

Netaji’s Last Days in Thailand

The Japanese authorities had informed Netaji that it could provide arms for 30,000 men.
However, by 1945 it is believed that the actual strength of the INA rose to around 45,000.
After completing the task of reorganizing the Indian Independence League, launching
preparations for revolutionizing the army, and conducting a successful campaign to
mobilize the support of Indian communities throughout Southeast Asia – from July to
 12

October 1945 – Netaji turned towards the formation of the Provisional Government of
Azad Hind (Free India). A Thai archival source of 1945 confirms the existence of an
entourage of Subhas Chandra Bose’s Azad Hind Sang (Indian Independence League)
located at Si Phya Road in Bangkok. It records Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose as head of
state, Provincial Government of Free India; Colonel A.C. Chatterjee as minister of state;
S.A. Ayer as minister of propaganda; Lt. Colonel Habibur Rahman as minister of state
and deputy chief of staff; Isa Singh as member; Lt. Colonel D.S. Raju as personal
physician; and Major B.S. Rawat as adjutant to Netaji.xlvii

According to Ishwar Singh Narula, Darshan Singh Bajaj, and others, a cordial
relationship existed between the Thai government and people and the Azad Hind
government, the credit for which should go to Netaji's groundwork. Immediately after
coming from Singapore, Netaji contacted Thai Prime Minister Phibul and Thai diplomats
and officers to secure the future of the Azad Hind government, even before its
foundation. The Thai government honoured Netaji as a head of any State (see Figure 2).
A Japanese document confirms that there was “plenty of goodwill and understanding”
between Phibul and Netaji.xlviii Netaji's English biographer Hugh Toy also mentions the
cordial relations that developed between the two countries. Toy writes that “the Siamese
were at their best, charming, hospitable, generous, eager to honour one who none dared
doubt, would soon march invincibly into India.”xlix

People like Prince Withikorn and Thai-India Cultural Lodge President Anuman
Rachodhorn said that if Japan was defeated in the war, Thailand would grant asylum to
Netaji. Netaji assured them that if the situation demanded, Devnath Das would talk to
them. Devnath Das even tried to arrange for Netaji's asylum in a Buddhist monastery in
Bangkok and even the royal priest Moyokong was ready to help him. But in the end,
Netaji decided to leave Bangkok for Saigon for unknown reasons.l

The history of Indian revolutionaries in Thailand is a fascinating untold story of Indo-

Thai-Japanese amity and friendship. It was the Japanese spirit of One Asia which brought
the Indian revolutionary unit close to diasporic Indian communities of Thailand, as well
to their Thai counterparts. Phibul appropriated the Japanese spirit of Pan-Asianism, while
launching an attack on imperial powers. Indian leaders, too, from Swami Satyananda Puri
to Rashbehari Bose and Subhas Chandra Bose were similarly motivated by the spirit of
nationalism and Japan concept of a united Asia had deep appeal for all of them. The Thai
Bharat Cultural Lodge played a unique role in this regard. This institution changed over a
period of time from a cultural unit to a centre of political activities under the banner of
the Indian National Council. The Council was the forum which facilitated and embraced
the emergence of leaders like Rashbehari and Subhas Bose. It was the Indian National
Council of Bangkok where the Indian Independence League had its generation even
before the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose. It was the platform for an important Indian
diasporic revolutionary unit outside India.
*
Dr Lipi Ghosh, lipighosh@gmail.com, is an Associate Professor in the Department of South and
Southeast Asian Studies, University of Calcutta, India. The author acknowledges the Netaji Research
 13

Bureau, Kolkata, for their permission to use an important photograph of Subhas Chandra Bose from their
archives for this article.
i
The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (Kyūjitai: Shinjitai: Dai-tō-a Kyōeiken).  
ii
Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper, Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945, London,
2004, p. 219.
iii
Bayly and Harper, Forgotten Armies, pp. 218-219.  
iv
Anton Pelinka, Democracy Indian Style: Subhas Chandra Bose and the Creation of India’s Political
Culture, translated by Rene Schell, London, 2003, p. 236.
v
Pelinka, Democracy Indian Style, p. 165.
vi
Bayly and Harper, Forgotten Armies, p. 4.  
vii
National Archives of India, New Delhi, Document by Poltical Warfare (Japan) Committee, Ministry of
Information & Political Warfare Executive, Plan of Political Warfare Against Japan, dated 20.ix.1942 in
Government of India, External Affairs, BR-W, File No 66-(7).
viii
Saichol Sattayanurak, “The Establishment of Mainstream Thought,” p. 14.
ix
National Archives of Thailand, ST. 0701.28/23 Document of Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of
Education, Luang Wichit Wathakan's draft of the declaration of the plea for peace entreaty [luang wichit
wathakan: raang kham thalääng rüang kaan wingwoon phüa santiphaap]; 1 September 1941 in Saichol
Sattayanurak, “The Establishment of Mainstream Thought on ‘Thai Nation’ and ‘Thainess’ by Luang
Wichit Wathakan,” Tai Culture, Vol. 7, No. 2 (December 2002): 7-34.
x
National Archives of India, Document by Political Warfare ( Japan) Committee, Ministry of Information
& Political Warfare Executive, Plan of Political Warfare Against Japan, dated 20.ix.1942 in Government of
India, External Affairs, BR-W, File No 66-(7).
xi
Pelinka, Democracy Indian Style, pp. 57-58.
xii
Lipi Ghosh, Indian Diaspora in Asian & Pacific Region: Culture, People, Interactions, Jaipur, 2004.
xiii
Tung Nath Dubey, India and Thailand: A Brief History, Delhi, 1990, pp. 138-139.
xiv
Amarjiva Lochan, “Thailand,” in Brij V. Lal, ed., The Encyclopedia of the Indian Diaspora, Singapore,
2007, p. 191.
xv
Dubey, India and Thailand, p. 138.
xvi
Dubey, India and Thailand, p. 140 and Lochan, “Thailand,” p. 192.
xvii
For details, see Lochan, “Thailand,” p. 192, and Ghosh, Indian Diaspora.
xviii
Lochan, “Thailand,” p. 193.
xix
Lakshmi Sahgal, A Revolutionary Life: Memoirs of a Political Activist, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 30-33.
xx
Sahgal, A Revolutionary Life, p. 192.
xxi
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo [Your Footsteps], Kolkata, 1982, p. 167.
xxii
Sisir Kumar Bose and Sugata Bose, ed., Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 12: Chalo Delhi: Writings and
Speeches 1943-1945, Calcutta, 2007, p. 1.
xxiii
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo, pp. 165-166.
xxiv
Ibid.
xxv
Dey, Ami Subhas Bolchhi, vol. 2, p. 283.
xxvi
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo, p. 462.
xxvii
Dey, Ami Subhas Bolchhi, vol. 2, p. 283.
xxviii
Subhas Chandra Bose, “The Indian Situation and World Opinion,” Address in Paris, 17 March 1936, in
Sisir Kumar Bose and Sugata Bose, ed., Netaji Collected Works, Volume 8: Letters, Articles, Speeches and
Statements, 1933-1937, Calcutta, 1994, p. 349.
xxix
Rashbehari Bose to Subhas Chandra Bose, Letter from Tokyo dated 25.01.1938, in Sisir Kumar Bose
and Sugata Bose, ed., Congress President: Speeches, Articles and Letters, January 1938- May 1939, New
Delhi, 1995, p. 255.
xxx
Secret Memorandum to the German Government, Berlin, 9th April, 1941 in Sisir Kumar Bose and
Sugata Bose, ed., Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 11: Writings and Speeches, 1941-1943, New Delhi and
Kolkata, 2002, p. 49.
xxxi
Pelinka, Democracy Indian Style, p. 154.
xxxii
“The fall of Singapore,” First broadcast 19 February 1941, in Bose and Bose, ed., Netaji Collected
Works, Vol. 11, p. 67.
 14

xxxiii
“India has no enemy outside her own frontiers,” Broadcast 19th March, 1942 in Bose and Bose, ed.,
Netaji Collected Works, Vol. 11, p. 78.
xxxiv
“India for the Indians,” Broadcast 6 April 1942, in Bose and Bose, ed., Netaji Collected Works, Vol.
11, p. 87.
xxxv
Sisir Kumar Bose and Sugata Bose, ed., The Indian Struggle 1920-1942: Subhas Chandra Bose, New
Delhi, 1997, pp. 379- 390.
xxxvi
Pelinka, Democracy Indian Style, pp. 235-236.
xxxvii
“The duty of patriot Indians,” Broadcast 1 January 1943, in Bose and Bose, ed., Netaji Collected
Works, Vol. 11, p. 181.
xxxviii
Netaji with Japan during World War II, in http://netaji.netfirms.com/netaji/japan5.html
xxxix
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo, p. 167.
xl
Lochan, “Thailand,” p. 193.
xli
“We fight on,” Speech delivered in Bangkok, 21 May 1945, in Bose and Bose, ed., Netaji Collected
Works, Vol. 12, p. 321.
xlii
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo, p. 168.
xliii
Ibid.
xliv
Pelinka, Democracy Indian Style, p. 165.
xlv
Lochan, “Thailand,” p. 193.
xlvi
Bose’s address to INA, 5 July, in S.A. Das and K.B. Subbaiah, Chalo Delhi, Kuala Lumpur, 1946, p.
137.
xlvii
Letter dated Bangkok, 11 January 1945, Doc. No 71 vide Ministry of Interiors Foreign Affairs,
Bangkok, Thailand.
xlviii
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo, p. 179.
xlix
Ibid.
l
Krishna Bose, Charan Rekha Tobo, pp. 179-180.