Common humanity
A Montreal lawyer, Azim Hussain, is not a fan of Holocaust denial.
The Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an abuse of the Jewish victims of that genocide, and of the Allied soldiers who sacrificed their lives in order to end the genocide. The Iranian president obviously does not realize that thousands of Muslim Allied soldiers died in World War II. Unbeknownst to many, including many Muslims, soldiers from North Africa to the Indian subcontinent enlisted in huge numbers in the armies of their colonial masters to fight to end the Nazi onslaught. From 15-year-old Indian boy-soldiers fighting in Italy to Noor Inayat Khan, a female spy sent by the British into German-occupied France, Muslims made an immense contribution to the Allied war effort. If we take only the Indian subcontinent as an example, the British-organized Indian army had 617,353 Muslim volunteers.
I was staggered by that figure – six hundred thousand volunteers – in colonial India. Jeezis. I didn’t know that – and Hussain points out that many Muslims don’t either. So that’s a fact that should get out more.
History is rooted in a common humanity. It is that common humanity that impelled Muslims during World War II to sacrifice their lives for the sake of everyone’s freedom, and it is that common humanity that is undermined when Ahmadinejad makes it a hobby to rail against the Holocaust. If he does it in ostensible support for the Palestinians, he should know that the Palestinians do not need such specious “solidarity.” Advocating for Palestinian rights does not require a denial of Jewish suffering in World War II.
As Norm says, in the post where I found this, “Indeed – just as upholding the rights of the Jews in Israel does not require a denial of Palestinian suffering in the Nakba.”
What a lovely humanist rebuke to the Holocaust-denying branch of the pro-Palestinian cause.
And I totally didn’t know about any of that, either. Now I want to read about Noor Inayat Khan!
Didn’t know that either. And I wish more people thought like Mr. Hussain.
This fact is a standard part of the anti-racism course given to UK civil servants – amusingly enough when it came up on the course I was on all the attendees were history buffs so when the trainer asked which part of the empire supplied the most troops we all said “India” which quite disappointed her. Casualty figures reveal a curious racism – brown people were assumed not to have “the right stuff” so tended not to be trusted for the sharp end and therefore were less at risk broadly speaking than Canadians or Anzacs. Turns out this racism thing can be a bit complicated.
Yes, I want to read about Noor Inayat Khan too! “Liberté”…
Interesting, Ken. Another thing I hadn’t known until recently was the huge death toll among Indians used as slave labour by the Japanese during the war. I did a post on it a year or two after seeing a PBS show (Frontline I think) about the death toll on the Burma-Thailand railroad. It was something horrendous like half a million among conscripted Asians. (I’m sure you already know that, but I hadn’t, to my embarrassment.)
Does anyone think that the facts in the article are presented by Mr Hussain in a way that is kind of flattering to the winners of WW2?
A few weeks ago I saw a something on BBC tv about Noor Inayat Khan’s story.
It was on a weekday morning as part of schools programming for Black History Month.
I’ve found a link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/noor-inayat-khan/3650.html
Can any British TV viewers here confirm that I’ve seen the actress in this clip was in one of the soaps (Eastenders, Coronation Street?)
Andy H
Does anyone think that the facts in the article are presented by Mr Hussain in a way that is kind of flattering to the winners of WW2?
Well, I guess that’s not too hard to do when the comparison is to Nazi torture. But it’s a bit disturbing that Britain’s use of underage colonial soldiers only comes up as an afterthought an argument against holocaust denial. And of course India’s involvement in WWII was a bit more complicated and less flattering to the British than “they volunteered”. Was that what you meant?
In any case it may be a mistake to assume that Iranians would consider the existence of such soldiers a knockdown argument, since some of these British-Indian troops were busy participating in the invasion and occupation of Iran around the same time…
Thank you, windy. But I have to admit I don’t know enough about the history of WW2, not to mention the subplot that Mr Hussain talked about, to reject his version of that particular part of history or to side with yours completely.
The thing about Mr Hussain’s article that tickles me is the rather obvious romanticization of the events, even to me who are aware of his less than amateurish understanding of the war.
Sentence like “History is rooted in a common humanity.”, and phrase like “It is that common humanity that impelled…” just get me think maybe there is something fishy here.
To echo Mr Hussain’s conclusion (perfectly fine with me) “Advocating for Palestinian rights does not require a denial of Jewish suffering in World War II.” and Norm’s reminder “Indeed – just as upholding the rights of the Jews in Israel does not require a denial of Palestinian suffering in the Nakba.”, maybe we could agree on: Exposing the denial of history does not require the misrepresentation or romanticization of history itself.
I think I should clarify. When I wrote “…even to me who are aware of his less than amateurish understanding of the war.” I was referring to *my* poor grasp of history, not Mr Hussain’s.
Well yes. My skeptical bells did ring – it doesn’t seem likely that 600 thousand Indians volunteered purely out of a sense of common humanity.
On the other hand if they had actually wanted Hitler to succeed, volunteering for the Allied side would have been a strange thing to do.
I think you’ll find that the total number of Indian Army volunteers was in the region of 2.5 million. The 600 thousand are specifically referred to as Muslim volunteers.
Also, nearly 400,000 African troops fought in WW2, mainly in east Africa and Burma.
It is good to be reminded of the very many south Asian Muslims who fought against the Axis. Also worth noting is that the majority of the active Free French military were ‘colonial’ troops.
Of course Hussain does not mention the Hanzar division of the SS, composed of Muslims from Bosnia etc. Nor the continuous relations of ‘Palestinian’ nationalist like Hajj Amin and co. with the 3rd Reich. Nor the Pro Nazi coup in Iran etc. etc.
I just read a short account of Noor Inayat Khan (‘Madeleine) in Marcus Binney’s book ‘The Women Who Lived for Danger; the agents of the Special Operations Executive.’ A book worth a look for anyone.
Lawrence, I know – I meant 600 thousand Muslims as in the article – but also wanted to call them Indians, since that’s what they were. That was meant as an alternative descriptor – not to say that 600 thousand was the total of Indian volunteers. Language is clumsy…