The Long Goodbye: British Agency in the Creation of Navies for India and Pakistan

Abstract

The armed forces of India and Pakistan draw legacies from a common British imperial past. British influence persisted in the navies that emerged from independence and partition on the South Asia subcontinent. Complaints over treatment and other grievances in the colonial Royal Indian Navy underscored a major mutiny in February 1946, prior to division of warships, shore-based establishments and personnel between the two countries. The transformation into truly national navies was long and involved, buttressed by continued reliance on British professional expertise and arms transfers. While the Admiralty offered warships on the basis of association with the commonwealth and defence cooperation in the Indian Ocean, navies in India and Pakistan led by senior British officers pursued distinct agendas and force structures that more and more looked towards potential war against each other. Louis Mountbatten, the last British viceroy, intervened often in naval matters before and after partition, encouraging Indians and Pakistanis to build up naval forces suited to national needs as well as serving British interests and imperial defence commitments during the early Cold War. Continued British presence impaired full nationalisation and the assumption of higher leadership roles by qualified indigenous naval officers in the newly independent commonwealth nations.

Notes

[1] Rehman, ‘Drowning Stability’, 65–70; Khan, ‘S-2: Options’, 87–90; and Berlin, ‘The Rise of India’, 3.

[2] Chatterji, ‘The Indian Navy’, 21; Berlin, ‘India in the Indian Ocean’, 79–80; Mistry, ‘Power or Purpose’, 11; Roy-Chaudhury, ‘The Role of the Navy’, 151–53; Cloughley, History of the Pakistan Army; and Siddiqa-Agha, Pakistan's Arms Procurement.

[3] Hiranandani, ‘Indian End of the Telescope’, 62–63; Sakhuja, ‘Naval Policy’, 108–12; Tellis, ‘India's Naval Expansion’, 187–88; Singh, Maritime Security for India; Rahn, ‘Unlocking Indian Maritime Strategy’, 9–19;. Ladwig, ‘India and Military Power Projection’, 1173–76; Wildemann, ‘Naval Presence’, 21–22; Roy-Chaudhury, India's Maritime Security; and Cheema, Armed Forces of Pakistan, 85–103.

[4] Holmes, Winner and Yoshihara, Indian Naval Strategy, 27.

[5] Hastings, The Royal Indian Navy; Richardson, ‘Mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy’; Streatfeild-James, In the Wake; Gourgey, Indian Naval Revolt; Dutt, Mutiny of Innocents; Bose, Rin Mutiny; Das, Revisting Talwar; Deshpande, ‘Hopes and Disillusionment’; Madsen, ‘Royal Indian Navy Mutiny’; and Spector, ‘Royal Indian Navy Strike’; and Davies ‘Learning “Large” Ideas’.

[6] Goldrick, No Easy Answers, 15–16; Roy-Chaudhury, Sea Power, 19–34; Hastings, The Royal Indian Navy, 226–29; Singh, Navies of South Asia, 50–53; Sakhuja, ‘Pakistan's Naval Strategy’, 494; Tellis, ‘Securing the Barrack’, 80–82; Singh, ‘Post-Imperial British Attitudes ’, 572; Scott, ‘India's Grand Strategy’, 102; Jackson, ‘The Royal Navy’, 79; and Holmes and Yoshihara, ‘Strongman, Constable or Free Rider?’, 333.

[7] McGarr, Cold War in South Asia; Zinger, ‘Development of Indian Naval Strategy’, 335–36; Rai, ‘India's Naval Strategy’, 141–44; Singh, ‘Imperial Defence’, 584–85; and Stiegler, ‘Communism and “Colonial Evolution”’, 77.

[8] Deshpande, British Military Policy, 156–60; Roy, The Army in British India; Mohan, ‘India as a Security Provider’, 9; Singh, Limits of British Influence, 16–19; and Rosen, Societies and Military Power, 198; Roy, ‘Military Loyalty’, 497;

[9] Report of Naval Mission to India (March–April 1919) of Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Jellicoe of Scapa, GCB, OM, GCVO. Simla: Government of India, 1919; India Office Military Records (hereafter IOMR) L/MIL/17/9/371, British Library, London (hereafter BL); Plans Division, Naval Staff, ‘Imperial Naval Cooperation: history of Lord Jellicoe's naval mission to India and the dominions in HMS New Zealand, 1919–1920’, Jan. 1936, ADM 1/8548/2, The National Archives, Kew (hereafter TNA); Jellicoe, ‘Naval Policy of the Empire’, 74–77. Deshpande, ‘Military Reform’, 192–93.

[10] Henry Rawlinson to Herbert Richmond, 1 Jan. 1925, RIC/7/3a, Admiral Herbert Richmond papers, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (hereafter NMM). Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to prepare a scheme for the reorganization of the Royal Indian Marine. Delhi: Government of India, 1926, IOMR L/MIL/17/9/372, BL.

[11] Captain Edward Bayfield, ‘History of the Royal Indian Navy’, RIN/16/2, RIN Association collection, NMM. Summary of the Administration of Field Marshal Sir W. R. Birdwood, G.C.B., GC.S.I, G.C.M.G. C.I.E. D.S.O., as commander-in-chief in India 6th August, 1925 to 29th November, 1930. Simla: Government of India Press, 1931, 40–42, IOMR L/MIL/17/5/1619, BL.

[12] Heathcote, The Military in British India, 243–47. Barua, ‘Strategies and Doctrines ’, 244–45.

[13] Flag Officer RIM to Secretary Admiralty, 7 June 1929, ADM1/8737/96, TNA; Rand and Wagner, ‘Recruiting the “Martial Races”’, 251–52; Soherwordi, ‘“Punjabisation” in the British Indian Army’, 14. By 1937, only 11 Indians held naval officer commissions in the RIN, though an increase on six years before. ‘A summary of important matters concerning the defence services in India, 1936–37’, 8, Robarts Library, University of Toronto, Toronto.

[14] Parkes, Ships of the Royal Navies, 190–95; ‘The Royal Indian Marine and Royal Indian Navy in the period 1932–39’, RIN/20/1, RIN Association collection, NMM; Hastings, ‘Bombay Buccaneers', 81–82.

[15] S. K. Brown ‘Disarmament’, 28 Jan. 1932, IOMR L/MIL/5/957, BL.

[16] Flag Officer commanding RIN to Secretary Admiralty, 22 Aug. 1939, ADM 1/9829, TNA; Government of India Defence Department to Secretary of State for India, 27 Aug. 1939, IOMR L/WS/1/6, BL.

[17] Herbert Fitzherbert to Secretary Government of India Defence Department (Navy Branch) ‘Nine Years’ Plan for the Expansion of the Royal Indian Navy’, 24 March 1938, RIN/62, RIN Association collection, NMM.

[18] Archibald Wavell to Chiefs of Staff, 15 April 1942, WO 106/3796, TNA.

[19] Collins, Royal Indian Navy; ‘History of Directorate-General, Shipbuilding and Repairs in [India], 1942–1945’, 11–18, ADM 1/19425, TNA; Inter-Services Historical Section ‘R.I.N. Burma Operations 1942–1945’, ADM 1/19642, TNA.

[20] Government of India to Secretary of State for India, 17 Nov. 1942, ADM 1/13966, TNA; S. K. Brown ‘Lecture delivered Imperial Defence College 15th October 1931, re. Indianization’, IOMR L/MIL/5/857, BL; Yeats-Brown, Martial India, 114; V.A.K., ‘The Indian Navy’, 386.

[21] Albert Alexander to Leo Amery, 19 Aug. 1943, ADM 1/15662, TNA.

[22] ‘The Naval Memoirs of Admiral J.H. Godfrey vol. VI 1943–1946 India’, 102, GOD/172, Admiral John Godfrey papers, NMM.

[23] Beesley, Very Special Admiral, 291–92; Hastings, The Royal Indian Navy, 209–10.

[24] ‘The Royal Indian Navy: A Review’, 2 April 1945, ADM 1/18527, TNA.

[25] Government of India to Secretary of State for India, 6 Oct. 1945, ADM 1/19060, TNA. The Military Department in the India Office had also convinced the Admiralty to relax cadet entry regulations to admit ‘boys of pure European descent from families permanently resident in India’. India Office to Secretary Admiralty, 28 May 1945, ADM 1/17897, TNA.

[26] Dennis, Troubled Days of Peace, 17; Mountbatten, Post-Surrender Tasks; ‘Report on the Royal Indian Navy July–Dec. 1945’, 1 Jan. 1945, ADM 1/19413, TNA; and Deshpande, ‘Hopes and Disillusionment’, 201–03.

[27] Robert Lockhart to Claude Auchinleck ‘Report on the RIN Mutiny and Civil Disturbances in Bombay’, 5 March 1946, 8310/154–72, General Robert Lockhart papers, National Army Museum, Chelsea (NAM); Streatfeild-James, In the Wake, 202–08; ‘Personal diary of Lieut-Comdr E.M. Shaw, R.I.N. for the period of the mutiny at Bombay with certain notes on salient points preceding events’, RIN/5/1, RIN Association collection, NMM.

[28] Das, Revisiting Talwar, 211; and Spector, ‘Royal Indian Navy Strike’, 272.

[29] Adhikari, Strike!, 21–23; and Richardson, ‘Mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy’, 199. The British offered the following interpretation: ‘Unconditional Surrender does not mean that there will be no enquiry or punishment. On the contrary there will certainly be an enquiry, and all those who have participated in the mutiny must be prepared to face the consequences of their acts. At the same time you will assure the men that there will be no victimization, by which I mean no vindictive action will be taken.’ ‘Copy of Memorandum to the Flag Officer, Bombay, Admiral A.R. Rattray, C.B., C.I.E., from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, dated 22 February 1946’, GOD/34, Godfrey papers, NMM; Commander-in-Chief East Indies station to Secretary Admiralty ‘Disturbances in the Bombay area’, 25 March 1946, ADM 1/19411, TNA.

[30] ‘Report of the R.I.N. Commission of Enquiry’, 247, IOMR L/MIL/17/9/379, BL;. Joshi, Towards a People's Navy, 6; A Victimised R.I.N. Striker, R.I.N. Uprising, 14; Gourgey, Indian Naval Revolt, 54–57; Diary, 10 Oct. 1946, MLS/13/8, Admiral Geoffrey Miles papers, NMM. The British put the blame elsewhere: ‘It is clear, however, that the ultimate, if not immediate, responsibility for events in Bombay and elsewhere rested with Congress. The mutinies and disturbances can be attributed to the general atmosphere of indiscipline and lawlessness encouraged by the Congress agitation in respect of the Japanese sponsored I.N.A. The unrestrained speeches of Indian politicians during the past few months are now producing results and it is becoming clear that the leaders are unable effectively to control the forces they have unleashed.’ Geoffrey Scoones to D. Monteith, 13 March 1946, IOMR L/WS/1/1040, BL.

[31] Geoffrey Miles to Claude Auchinleck, 24 Sept. 1946, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM.

[32] Moon, Wavell, 407. The Admiralty's first lord, a member of the cabinet mission sent to Delhi for preliminary discussions towards transfer of power, followed negotiations with Indian political leaders as well ‘as to how these may affect our future Defence problems’. Albert Alexander to Archibald Wavell, 28 Oct. 1946, 5/11/43, Albert Alexander papers, Churchill College Archive Centre, Cambridge University, Cambridge.

[33] Secretary of State for India to Claude Auchinleck, 19 March 1946, IOMR L/WS/1/1041, BL; Deshpande, ‘Sailors and the Crowd’, 21–22; Alpes, ‘Congress and the INA Trials’, 140–43; Osborn, ‘Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck’, 55; Gupta, ‘Imperial Strategy’, 7–9; and Singh, ‘Decolonization in India’, 196.

[34] Nair, Army of Occupation, 35–36.

[35] ‘General views on nationalization of the armed forces by the Flag Officer commanding the Royal Indian Navy’, 3 Feb. 1947, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM.

[36] Ian Campbell to mother, 18 May 1946, in author's possession.

[37] Bates, Subalterns and Raj, 172.

[38] Clement Attlee to Louis Mountbatten, 18 March 1947, PREM 8/557, TNA; Campbell-Johnson, Mission with Mountbatten, 30–31. Wavell confided to Mountbatten: ‘As I said, though I am sorry to be leaving here without seeing the thing through, I am delighted that you are coming if there has to be a change.’ Archibald Wavell to Louis Mountbatten, 26 Feb. 1947, E186, Admiral Louis Mountbatten papers, Archives and Special Collections Hartley Library University of Southampton, Southampton (hereafter SCUS); Kent, British Imperial Strategy, 116.

[39] COS 47(16), ‘Nationalization of the Royal Indian Navy by 1st June 1948’, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM. Miles wrote privately to the First Sea Lord that manning a cruiser and nationalisation worked at cross purposes: ‘It is really very sad, as I have no doubt that given a slower rate of nationalization, say over a period of ten years, with the necessary secondment from the R.N., India could have had a very flourishing and fairly efficient little Navy.’ Geoffrey Miles to John Cunningham, 12 March 1947, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM.

[40] Defence Committee India 3rd (47) meeting, 25 April 1947, MSS Eur F200 IOR Neg. 15538–67 reel 15538 file 6A, Mountbatten Viceroy papers, BL.

[41] Connell, Auchinleck, 876–80.

[42] Hastings, The Royal Indian Navy, 82–83; Ismay, Memoirs, 428; and Barkawi, ‘Peoples, Homelands, and Wars?’, 141–43.

[43] ‘Remarks by H.M. Defence’, 23 April 1947, MSS Eur F200 IOR Neg. 15538–67 reel 15538 file 6A, Mountbatten Viceroy papers, BL.

[44] Osborn, ‘Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck’, 133; Pakistan Navy History Section, Story of the Pakistan Navy, 48–55.

[45] Flag Officer commanding Royal Indian Navy to Admiralty, 11 July 1947, ADM 1/21163, TNA; Roy, War in the Indian Ocean, 55.

[46] Wainwright, Inheritance of Empire, 72–74; and Jalal, ‘India's Partition’, 295.

[47] V.A.K. ‘The Indian Navy’, 386.

[48] Mansergh and Moon, Transfer of Power, vol. 11, 893; Claude Auchinleck, ‘Situation in India and Pakistan’, 8 Oct. 1947, PREM 8/587, TNA.

[49] Spence, ‘Imperial Transition, Indianisation and Race’, 329.

[50] Louis Mountbatten to Claude Auchinleck, 26 Sept. 1947, E6, Mountbatten papers, SCUS. The prime minister expressed his confidence: ‘I must convey to you in writing what I should have liked to express to you in person, namely, the sincere gratitude of the Government, and, I am sure of informed opinion throughout the country, for the way in which you have accomplished the thankless task which we set you as Supreme Commander. All of us who have intimate knowledge of Indian affairs realise that, in the last twelve months, your influence has been of incalculable weight and value, not only on the military side, but even more in the wider political sphere, into which you have so often found yourself dragged. You may feel that your job ended in little but frustration; but the fact that the Army held together as well as it did, that re-constitution went through so smoothly, and that both India and Pakistan now have disciplined Armed Forces at their command, is clear proof of the real and lasting success of the work you did.’ Clement Attlee to Claude Auchinleck, 30 Dec. 1947, PREM 8/566, TNA; Ziegler, Mountbatten, 464–65.

[51] Minister of Defence to Supreme Commander, 7 Nov. 1947, PREM 8/542, TNA.

[52] Naval Headquarters (India) plans paper no. 1 ‘Outline Plan for the Reorganisation and Development of the Royal Indian Navy’, 25 Aug. 1947, MSS Eur F200 neg. 15538–67 reel 15538 file 9b, Mountbatten Viceroy papers, BL; Naidu, ‘Indian Navy and Southeast Asia’, 75.

[53] Singh, ‘Keeping India in the Commonwealth’, 474.

[54] Claude Auchinleck ‘Situation in India and Pakistan’, 8 Oct. 1947, PREM 8/587, TNA.

[55] John Cunningham to Geoffrey Miles, 8 Sept. 1947, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM.

[56] Naval plans paper no. 6 ‘Terms of Service for British Officers Serving with the Royal Indian Navy’, 20 Oct. 1947, MSS Eur F200 IOR neg. 15538-67 reel 15539 file 11B, Mountbatten Viceroy papers, BL.

[57] Naval Headquarters (India) ‘Naval Plans Paper no. 1—Costs of Future Royal Indian Navy’, ADM 116/5852, TNA.

[58] Geoffrey Miles to Secretary Admiralty, 14 Jan. 1948, ADM 1/21104, TNA.

[59] ‘Sale of Warships to India and Pakistan’, 22 Dec. 1947, IOMR L/WS/1/1703, BL.

[60] ‘Terms of Service for British Officers Who Volunteer to Serve in the Royal Pakistan Navy after the Departure of the Supreme Commander’, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM.

[61] ‘Indian and Pakistan Negotiations: Note of the 4th Meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Defence Expenditure Working Party Held at the Treasury on 10th June 1948’, ADM 1/21071, TNA.

[62] ‘Minutes of Meeting between the Representatives of the Governments of Pakistan and the United Kingdom Held in the Ministry of Defence, London, on Wednesday 19th September 1951’, DEFE 7/157, TNA.

[63] Louis Mountbatten to Baldev Singh, 6 Dec. 1947, MLS/10/1, Miles papers, NMM.

[64] Louis Mountbatten to First Sea Lord, 1 Jan. 1948, ADM 1/22683, TNA.

[65] Parry's promotion to vice admiral preceded the Indian appointment and essentially freed him from the naval intelligence post, normally held by a lower-ranking (and paid) flag officer. Naval Secretary minute, 28 Nov. 1947, ADM 1/20488, TNA.

[66] Tughlak, ‘Birth of the Indian Navy’, 173–74.

[67] Brands, ‘India and Pakistan in American Strategic Planning’, 44–46.

[68] ‘Royal Indian Navy: Visit of High Commissioner for India to First Lord on Friday, 18 November’, 1949, ADM 1/24095, TNA. Parry looked to Mountbatten for assistance: ‘It is great to feel that India will have a real friend in the Admiralty & I expect to make a thorough nuisance of myself in getting your help when necessary. Most of the Admiralty is very helpful—but for obvious reasons they can't do as much as we would like, particularly on the air side.’ William Parry to Louis Mountbatten, F5/2, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[69] Director of Plans minute, 3 May 1950, ADM 116/5852, TNA; Tughlak, ‘Birth of the Indian Navy’, 175.

[70] ‘India and the Royal Indian Navy: Report by Vice Admiral W.E. Parry, C.B. after his First Year as Commander-in-Chief, Royal Indian Navy’, 71/19/8, Admiral William Parry papers, Imperial War Museum, Lambeth (hereafter IWM). Brown liked his Indian service: ‘I have thoroughly enjoyed my time with the R.I.N., the job has been most interesting & I have developed a definite affection for my officers & men. They are good material.’ H.N.S. Brown to Louis Mountbatten, 21 Jan. 1950, F5, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[71] Law opinion ‘Disciplinary Relations between the Royal Navy and the Royal Indian Navy’, 3 Oct. 1946, TS 32/89, TNA.

[72] William Parry to John Lang, 29 April 1950, ADM 1/21970, TNA.

[73] William Parry to Lady Parry, 6 May 1950, 71/19/10, Parry papers, IWM; Singh, Under Two Ensigns, 101.

[74] ‘Ceremonial Parade for Laying Up of the King's Colours at the National Defence Academy, Dehra Dun’, 23 Nov. 1950, 71/19/8 file ‘India’, Parry papers, IWM; India High Commission to Admiralty, 14 Jan. 1948, ADM 1/20767, TNA; R. V. Brockman to J. W. D. Locker, 19 June 1948, F34, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[75] Mark Pizey to Louis Mountbatten, 26 July 1953, H177, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[76] ‘Indian Ocean—Naval Command Structure in War’, 14 Oct. 1952, ADM 1/23846, TNA.

[77] Jawaharlal Nehru to Clement Attlee, 28 Jan. 1951, PREM 8/1492, TNA; P. L. Thorne to Viscount Swinton, 2 July 1953, ADM 1/24095, TNA; Louis Mountbatten to William Parry, 18 Sept. 1950, G24, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[78] Pakistan Navy History Section, Story of the Pakistan Navy, 164–66. Notwithstanding the changeover, Choudri's chief of staff was Commodore Caspar Swinley, a retired British officer from the retired list vetted by Mountbatten as ‘a personal friend of mine’. Louis Mountbatten to H.M.S. Choudri , 2 Nov. 1952, H144, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[79] Foreign Relations of the United States, 1839–46; Stiegler, ‘John Foster Dulles’, 14–18; McMahon, ‘United States Cold War Strategy’, 824; Rao, ‘Pakistan Re-Arms’, 141; Afroz, ‘The Cold War and United States Military Aid to Pakistan’, 59; Nayar, Superpower Dominance, 63–66; Soherwordi, ‘US Foreign Policy Shift’, 22–25; and Rotter, Comrades at Odds, 58–59.

[80] Director Naval Intelligence ‘The Role of the Pakistan Navy in War’, 3 May 1955, ADM 1/26188, TNA.

[81] Louis Mountbatten to Mark Pizey, 24 Oct. 1951, 71/19/8, Parry papers, IWM. Mountbatten was firm in this conviction: ‘When I was in India I did everything in my power to try and get them to build up a Navy which would be of some use to the allied effort in that part of the world in the event of a world war. The fact that Nehru is doing all in his power to hold the balance and prevent the war from breaking out has made people misunderstand the fundamental position, which is that there can be no question of India fighting on the wrong side in the war, if it comes. She may not join at once but if the war becomes really world-wide I do not see how she can really keep out and I think that everybody in India realises that she will eventually be fighting on our side. Their contribution therefore can make a considerable difference to us, since they have good Naval bases at Bombay, Cochin, Vizagapatam, etc. all of which would be at our disposal and, of course, their inexhaustible supply of manpower which is exceptionally quick to learn and fearless in battle.’ Louis Mountbatten to Secretary Admiralty, 31 Aug. 1951, G24, Mountbatten papers. SCUS. Pizey came to the job with strong recommendations from Parry and Mountbatten and doubly his wife ‘is a very charming woman and highly suitable to support her husband should he become Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Navy’. William Parry to Shri H. M. Patel, ‘Naval Headquarters’, 21 Dec. 1950, 66/279/1, Admiral Mark Pizey papers, IWM. Morgan Giles, ‘Obituary: Admiral Sir Mark Pizey’, The Independent, 26 June 1993.

[82] Mark Pizey to Rhoderick McGrigor, 1 March 1954, ADM 1/25523, TNA.

[83] Panikkar, Problems of Indian Defence, 111–12. India approached other western European firms for naval construction and shipbuilding expertise, much to the chagrin of the British. Louis Mountbatten to Jawaharlal Nehru, 3 June 1952, H144, Mountbatten papers, SCUS.

[84] ‘Aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy’, 26 July 1955, PREM 11/957, TNA; Cheema, ‘Indian Naval Buildup’, 87–88.

[85] Katari, A Sailor Remembers, 92.

[86] George Anderson to Caspar John, 16 March 1963, ADM 1/28088, TNA; Singh, Blueprint to Bluewater, 89–92; Vivekanandan, ‘Naval Power’, 61–66; McGarr, ‘After Nehru, What?’, 132–33.