Memorialising the war

On September 3, 2015, China memorialises what it officially calls the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression and the World Ant-Fascist War (1937-1945). Memories and interpretations of the war are matters of contentious debate in East Asia, the countries Japan invaded and colonised still feel that Japanese recognition of their past atrocities has been insufficient. Japan’s Prime Minister Abe Shinzo will not be going to attend the ceremonies in China. An opportunity lost as many in Japan have worked to recognise their imperial past and ensure that they do not repeat those mistakes. Unfortunately, his narrow politics prevents him from taking a bold visionary step. Here, in India, we are also in the process of memorialising the 1965 war with Pakistan arguing about who won, rather than taking the larger lesson that no one wins in a war. 

India could also have gone beyond her current preoccupations to use the occasion to project a larger vision for this region. As for the war in China, we seem to have largely forgotten that Indians participated in war in this region, both as troops of the British empire and as nationalists looking to make India independent. At the request of the Chinese Communist Party (CPC), and the backing of Subhas Chandra Bose, then Congress president, a medical team, led by Dr Atal, was sent to China. Nehru followed this up with a visit in 1939. Dr Kotnis, one of the doctors on that medical mission, stayed on for five years, and worked with the Eighth Route Army, led by Mao Zedong. Dr Kotnis died on the battlefront caring for the wounded and injured. He is still a revered figure in China. 

The war in East and Southeast Asia had affected the people in complex ways. The Japanese invasions saw great suffering but also presented an opportunity for nationalist movements to work with the Japanese to overthrow their colonial masters. The Indian National Army, under Subhash Chandra Bose was supported by the Japanese, as were many other Southeast Asian leaders.

The war was a transformative event. Western writers clearly acknowledged China’s role at that time in the fight against fascism. Johan Gunnar Anderson praised the Guomindang, the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-shek, for fighting single-handedly for the right of a nation to live independently in the aptly titled, China Fights for the World. The Communists found support in the writings of Edgar Snow and Israel Epstein, and the comparison with the Spanish civil war was never far, as shown in the poems of WH  Auden, or the writings of Christopher Isherwood. Robert Capa, the photographer, reported from Spain, and after General Franco’s victory, came to China. China was a key ally in the global war and its fight against Japan contributed to the Allied victory.

The war powerfully shaped modern China, making it the nation it is today. In the years between 1937, when the war started, and 1945, when the Japanese were defeated, 14 million Chinese died, between 8-100 million people became refugees, that is 15-25 per cent of the population were forced to flee their homes, destitute and at the mercy of disease and exploitation; factories and infrastructure built in the initial years of industrialization was completely destroyed. China was in a shambles. The World War ended and it was followed by a bitter civil war till 1949, which will mostly be gloss over in the governments celebrations.  

The victory of the CPC ensured that the foundational myths of the new China would be the heroic struggle of the CPC, both against the evil Nationalists and the Japanese invaders. The Guomindang, usually depicted as imperial stooges and representatives of the big bourgeoisie and landlords, were, in fact, laying the basis for Chinese industrialisation, and attempting to keep China free. They faced the brunt of Japanese attacks, fought more than the CPC and suffered greater losses. The Nationalists were forced, by the Allied forces, to divert troops to Burma when they could have been used to recover areas along the Yangtse river. Allied strategy was more concerned with preventing the fall of India and Southeast Asia, which would have allowed Japanese forces to retreat through China, and in supporting the Pacific offensive, than in defeating Japan in China. The Guomindang managed, till 1941, to maintain social stability, protect rural productivity and, because of this, was able to raise more than 2 million troops annually to prevent China from becoming a Japanese colony. Their contribution cannot be ignored.

The course of Chinese development was fundamentally altered but, even more importantly, 12 years of continuous warfare, longer than the period of WWII, changed the people’s attitudes, creating a fear of ‘disorder’. The war strengthened the militarisation of everyday language and society: increasing bureaucratic organisation, whether in the organisation of medical relief, the provision of welfare measures, or recruitment, and idealizing a martial or ‘shangwu’ spirit. The Chinese self-image was transformed; they were no longer the effete people depicted by the West. 

The Chinese have made Japanese atrocities the central focus of the memorialisation, atrocities symbolised by the massacre in Nanjing.

The Japanese entered Nanjing, a former Ming capital and of immense symbolic significance in the Chinese imagination, on December 13, 1937, and till the middle of January 1938 their soldiers indulged in unrestricted murder, rape and robbery — 20,000 raped in the first month according to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The debate ranges over every aspect of the massacre, which areas to include in the city, whether to count only civilians or soldiers as well, and the figures vary from 40,000 to 200,000 but, it’s not a statistical question. The pillaging was immoral and reprehensible. 

This question of morality also hangs over the heads of the Chinese. Chiang Kai-shek ordered the  deliberate breaching of the Yellow River dykes to stop the advance of the Japanese armies in 1938. The argument advanced was, ‘use water, instead of soldiers, (yishuidaibing). No advance warning was given to the people. An area of 54,000 square km was suddenly inundated. About 500,000 people died and 3-5 million people became homeless. This immense destruction and the dislocation that followed created the conditions for disease, malnutrition and more deaths. Can this be justified as a strategically necessary decision? 

China and Japan were not just rivals. Japan had been a model for Chinese republicans and patriots fighting the imperial Qing or Manchu dynasty. Modern Chinese nationalism was anti-Manchu but now the Manchus have become part of a common past and anti-Japanese sentiment the crucial binding factor in Chinese nationalism. Yet this ignores the long periods of fruitful interaction between the two countries. The Chinese language is full of modern Japanese neologism, justice and revolution to name just two words, have come back via modern Japanese. Chinese students began to go to Japan from the mid 1880s and saw it as a model to emulate. Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Chinese republic, had Japanese support. 

It is worth recalling that Nehru, when he convened the Asian relations Conference in 1947, months before independence, called the new Japanese government to participate, as he argued, a new Asia could not be founded without Japan. The lesson of the war was that everyone suffered and the future could only be built on a new and more inclusive nationalism. As tensions mount in both East Asia and in our neighbourhood, it is important to think about memorialising national wars in more constructive ways.

The author is professor of Modern Japanese History, Delhi University (Retd)