Can colonial-era military service be honoured without legitimising colonialism? Discuss with reference to Indian soldiers in the World Wars.

Undivided India sent about 1.5 million soldiers to World War I, and more than 74,000 of them died [1]. In World War II its army grew past 2.5 million, which the MEA calls the largest volunteer army in history [2], and more than 87,000 were killed [3]. India can honour these soldiers without approving of the Raj, as long as it separates the soldier from the empire and also counts what colonial rule cost India.

Why honouring them can seem to legitimise colonialism

• They defended freedoms India did not have: WWII enlistment happened in the same years as the Quit India Movement (1942).
• WWI was a war between empires: Indian troops fought in faraway theatres for Britain's strategic aims. They were not fighting fascism.
• The cost at home is left out: the 1943 Bengal famine killed an estimated 1.5–3 million people [4]. That is far more than died in battle, and it happened under the same wartime government.

Why honouring them is still possible

• The soldier is not the ruler: courage, duty and sacrifice belong to the individual soldier. The criticism is aimed at the colonial state, not at the sepoy.
• They defended India and fought fascism: in 1944 Indian troops held back Japan's offensive at Imphal–Kohima, on Indian soil.
• Volunteering is not the same as loyalty: many enlisted because they needed work or came from martial traditions. Wartime India had several loyalties at once: the British Indian Army, Quit India and the INA.
• The state already keeps the two apart: the President said Indian soldiers "etched their name in world history" [5]. The Prime Minister paid homage to more than 4,300 Indian WWI dead at Heliopolis [6]. India's first government-built memorial in France stands at Villers-Guislain [7].

Way forward: remembering honestly

• Digitise MEA's Last Post record of Indian war memorials [2] so families can search it by district.
• NCERT should teach enlistment, Quit India and the famine as one connected story.
• Take 11 November beyond the cantonment: add a civilian observance to the military wreath-laying, and include the famine victims.

Remembering the soldier while criticising the system is not a contradiction; it shows a mature view of history. Remembrance that honours the sacrifice, names colonial exploitation and includes the civilian dead would fit military heritage into the story of the freedom struggle. It would reflect the constitutional value of fraternity and make India's commemorative diplomacy more credible.