Forgotten no more: Growing demand for UK memorial to India's WW2 Heroes
More than 2.5 million Indian soldiers served in the Allied forces during Second World War - forming the largest volunteer army in history.
From the deserts of North Africa to the mountains of Italy and the jungles of Burma, they fought with courage and distinction. Yet, their sacrifice remains largely overlooked, both in India and abroad.
Now, as the world nears the 80th anniversary of the war's end, calls are growing for a dedicated memorial in the United Kingdom to honour these forgotten heroes.
Squadron Leader Rana TS Chhina, MBE, director of the Centre for Military History and Conflict Studies at the United Service Institution of India, strongly supports the initiative.
"It is unfortunate that there is no dedicated memorial to the Indian Army in World War Two - neither in India nor in the UK. If such a memorial were to come up, it would be a very welcome step,' he told ITV News.
Chhina also highlighted the complexity of India's wartime role. The British Viceroy unilaterally declared war on Germany in 1939 without consulting India's elected leaders.
While many Indian political parties opposed fascism, they demanded independence in return for supporting the war effort - a demand Britain refused. Yet, millions still volunteered.
"The Indian story in World War Two is slightly more complicated," Chhina said to ITV News.
"The Viceroy declared war without consulting political leadership. While Indian leaders opposed fascism, they believed a nation fighting for democracy abroad deserved its own freedom.'
Despite these tensions, Indian soldiers served with honour in nearly every major theatre of the war.
Mandeep Singh Bajwa, Military Affairs Columnist at The Indian Express, echoed this sentiment.
'A total of four million Indians fought on the Allied side in both world wars. 176,000 gave up their lives. The country's contribution in terms of manpower, goods, and money was phenomenal,' he told ITV News.
'But very few people in Europe or America know this. It's high time a magnificent monument is built in Britain to commemorate those who fought, and the governments of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh should all be involved in its unveiling.'
Momentum for such a memorial has grown since British artist Mahtab Hussain launched a petition on Change.org calling for recognition of Indian soldiers' wartime service.
"The Indian soldiers who fought in World War Two have been forgotten for too long," Hussain wrote in the appeal.
"Their stories, their bravery, their sacrifice - they deserve a permanent memorial that acknowledges their unique contribution, especially here in London."
While the Cenotaph and the Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill acknowledge Commonwealth contributions, critics argue they fail to reflect the scale and specificity of India's role in the war.
India's own record of remembrance is similarly lacking. Journalist Sudhir Arora of the Garhwal Post has questioned why India continues to sideline its Second World War veterans.
"Why don't we remember our Second World War dead?" he wrote. "Millions served bravely on multiple fronts, but our national memory has largely erased their courage."
Many analysts attribute this to a post-independence discomfort with India's colonial past.
There was reluctance to honour a military effort seen as part of British imperialism. But that narrative, critics argue, misses the broader point: Indian soldiers also fought against fascism.
Their sacrifice, they say, is not just a British or colonial story - it's an Indian one.
Although India inaugurated a National War Memorial in 2019, it honours only post-independence martyrs. The graves of Indian World War Two soldiers, maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission at the Delhi War Cemetery, remain largely forgotten and rarely visited.
As Chhina noted, remembrance must go beyond mere physical structures.
"This isn't only about a monument in stone," he said to ITV News. "It's about restoring honour, shaping collective memory, and telling a complete story of India's role in the world."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on attacking the ECHR: the real target is judicial independence and the rule of law
Most British citizens have little contact with human rights law, which is as it should be in a mature democracy. Widespread anxiety about basic freedoms is a feature of more repressive regimes. Many people will only have heard of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in the context of the last Conservative government's failed attempts to dispatch asylum seekers to Rwanda, or in a handful of incidents where convicted criminals or terrorist suspects have avoided deportation to jurisdictions where they might face inhumane treatment. Such cases are amplified by politicians who are hostile to the whole apparatus of human rights law. The Strasbourg court that adjudicates on breaches of the ECHR is denounced as an enemy of British sovereignty. Those attacks will continue for as long as asylum, and small-boats traffic on the Channel in particular, are salient political issues – for the foreseeable future, in other words. Labour's new 'one-in, one-out' scheme for returning seaborne refugees is more robust in legal and humanitarian terms than the failed Tory method. France is a safe country. That won't stop critics accusing the government of failing to control the border and citing international human rights conventions as the main impediment to the restoration of law and order. Nigel Farage has said he would 'get rid of the ECHR' as a day-one priority should Reform UK ever form a government. Kemi Badenoch is drifting to the same position, albeit with circumspection. The Conservative leader acknowledges that peremptory rupture is not straightforward, especially for Northern Ireland since European convention rights are woven into the Good Friday agreement. Mrs Badenoch has commissioned a report to consider how an ECHR exit might be achieved but expressed her personal view that Britain 'will likely need to leave' because human rights are wielded as a 'sword … to attack democratic decisions and common sense.' The core argument, for both Mrs Badenoch and Mr Farage, is that voters want politicians to expel undesirable elements from society but the popular will is being thwarted by unelected judges. Human rights, in this conception, are a loophole through which criminals and foreign interlopers evade justice. Ideas codified after the second world war as foundational principles of a new democratic settlement for Europe are recast as attacks on the law-abiding majority. This rhetorical subterfuge gets a purchase on public discourse through channels previously opened by Brexit. The ECHR is not an EU institution, but the fact of it being European in name stirs suspicion that it is an alien imposition. Dispensing with human rights obligations would be a necessary step for any government seeking to emulate Donald Trump's programme of detaining and deporting migrants without regard for due process. It is not far-fetched to envisage a Reform government recreating that model, given Mr Farage's record of admiration for Mr Trump. ECHR rulings are not infallible. A 71-year-old institution can reasonably be scrutinised with a view to reform. But that is not what its noisiest UK antagonists have in mind. They target the convention not because it is a big part of public life, but because it is a minor one and poorly understood. It is a soft target in a longer campaign to undermine judicial independence, discredit liberal principle and, ultimately, degrade the rule of law to the benefit of unaccountable executive power.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Sturgeon refuses to rule out future relationship with woman
Nicola Sturgeon has refused to rule out having a relationship with a woman following the break-up of her marriage. The former first minister, who has split from her husband Peter Murrell, said she was not 'rushing into a relationship with anyone'. But she twice did not rule out a same-sex relationship after being challenged twice about comments in her forthcoming memoirs in which she said her sexuality was not 'binary'. In an interview with ITV News, to be broadcast on Monday evening, she said she was not 'contemplating' anything and was 'just enjoying life'. Ms Sturgeon has used her memoirs, published this week, to hit out at social media speculation that she was having a 'torrid lesbian affair' with a former French ambassador to the UK. She said long-term relationships with men had accounted for more than 30 years of her life, but left the door open to the suggestion that she might date another woman. Asked about her comment about her sexuality not being binary, Ms Sturgeon told presenter Julie Etchingham: 'I mean what it says, it's just my view of the world and life and the way people are. If you're about to ask me am I making some big revelation? No. Am I putting labels on myself? No. That's how I see the world.' Asked whether she might have a relationship with a woman, she said: 'I'm just out of a marriage, so I'm not rushing into a relationship with anyone any time soon. I'm enjoying being my own person for a while.' Pressed on whether that meant she was not ruling it out, she said: 'I'm not contemplating, sort of anything of that nature. I'm just enjoying life.' Gender reform Ms Sturgeon said she should have taken a 'step back' from her government's controversial Gender Recognition Reform Bill to try and address concerns over women's rights. The bill, which would have allowed biological men to change legal gender by simply signing a declaration, was passed at Holyrood but vetoed by the UK Government over concerns that it undermined women's safe spaces. However, it emerged that swathes of Scotland's public sector adopted self-identification all the same, allowing trans people access to female toilets and changing rooms. Experts warned these practices would have to be scrapped following the Supreme Court's ruling in April that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex and does not include trans women. Speaking about the bill, she said: 'I didn't anticipate as much as I should, or engage as much as I should, on some of the concerns that might then be triggered. 'At the point I knew it was becoming, or felt it becoming, as polarised I should have said, 'Right, OK, let's pause, let's take a step back'.' She argued the rights of trans people and women were 'not irreconcilable at all'. Ms Sturgeon discussed a 2023 police raid on her home as part of an inquiry into the SNP's finances. Mr Murrell, the party's former chief executive, was arrested and was later charged with embezzlement. She said she 'kind of somehow blocked it out' at the time, adding: 'It wasn't until I got to mum and dad's that I saw the pictures of my house looking like a murder scene effectively.' After becoming tearful describing her emotions, she said: 'I had this sense of horror and upset and the kind of shame of it all.' Ms Sturgeon was arrested in June 2023 but the investigation against her was later dropped. Asked about attending a police station for questioning, she said: 'Horrific. Part of me just closed down.' In a separate interview with The Sunday Times, she ruled out a return to front-line politics after she steps down from the Scottish Parliament at next May's election, and raised the prospect of moving to London, saying she had 'always loved' it.
Scottish Sun
2 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Nicola Sturgeon reveals mistake over controversial gender ID row in bombshell ITV interview
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) NICOLA Sturgeon has admitted she made a mistake in how she handled the controversial gender ID row. The former First Minister has spoken to ITV News in an exclusive interview ahead of her memoir being released next week. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 Nicola Sturgeon revealed her 'mistake' in the ITV interview Credit: ITV NEWS 4 The former first minister she underestimated the anger over the bill Credit: ITV NEWS 4 The row was escalated when it emerged trans double-rapist Isla Bryson had been housed in a women's jail Credit: PA And in a sneak preview ahead of the full interveiw being aired on Monday night, Ms Sturgeon told ITV's Julie Etchingham she did not predict the anger from opponents to the bill. She said: 'I didn't anticipate as much as I should, or engage as much as I should, on some of the concerns that might then be triggered.' But the ex-SNP leader insisted her backing of trans rights was still correct - but admitted she should have 'taken a step back'. She added: 'I fervently believe that the rights of women and the interests of trans people are not irreconcilable at all. I should have taken a step back and said, 'How do we achieve this?'.' Her reverse-ferret is the latest twist in the saga over self-ID laws which go back to 2017 when the SNP first revealed the planned legal changes. The law would have removed the need for trans people to be diagnosed with so-called gender dysphoria by a doctor in order to change their legally-recognised sex via a process known as a gender recognition certificate. It also planned to lower the age someone could apply for one from 18 to 16, and cut the amount of time someone would have to live in their 'acquired gender' from two years to just three months. The plans sparked outcry from feminist groups despite being backed by LGBT organisations - who warned they would allow biological men into single sex spaces and increasing the risk of sexual assault or harassment. They were also heavily criticised by high profile critics including Harry Potter author JK Rowling who blasted Ms Sturgeon as the 'destroyer of women's rights'. In December 2022 after months of furious debate, MSPs from all parties passed the bill 86 votes to 39. Nicola Sturgeon reveals her sexuality 'isn't binary' in bombshell new book However, it was blocked from becoming law by the then-Tory UK Government who were challenged in court by the Scottish Government under Humza Yousaf's leadership. This cost taxpayers more than £375,000 in costs to the UK and Scottish Governments. The SNP also chose to fight two legal challenges from For Women Scotland about the definition of a woman - with costs expected to top £625,000. In April, judges ruled that the definition of 'woman' under equality law was biological women - hailed as a "victory for common sense" by campaigners. Ms Sturgeon faced furious pressure after trans double rapist, Isla Bryson, born Adam Graham, was housed in a women's prison. She refused to say whether the beast was a man or a woman and as recently as January doubled down, stating: 'That person was a rapist.' In the same interview, she also rejected the suggestion she hadn't taken feminist concerns about the rules seriously. Ms Sturgeon said: 'The legal system we were trying to introduce has existed in the Republic of Ireland for years without any of the terrible consequences that were predicted here. 'If I was to sit here today and say I just wouldn't do it, that would be to make my own life easier.' She previously claimed opponents to the bill were criticising the bill with a 'cloak of acceptability to cover up what is transphobia'. The ex-Nats chief said some critics were: 'deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well'. And after the UK's equality watchdog said trans people should be banned from single sex facilities like bathrooms, Ms Sturgeon said the rules could make the lives of trans people 'almost unliveable'. She said: 'I think that potentially makes the lives of trans people almost unliveable. 'It certainly doesn't make a single woman any safer to do that because the threat to women comes from predatory and abusive men.' The full interview airs on ITV tomorrow night at 7pm.
