We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 August 2017
In November 1945, the British colonial authorities convened a court martial of members of the Indian National Army, which had fought alongside the Japanese in the Asia-Pacific War. Three defendants were charged with ‘waging war against the King’ – the equivalent of treason, set out in Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code.
At the heart of the case was the question of allegiance. The chief defence counsel, Bhulabhai Desai, had the task of presenting a legitimate – i.e., non-treasonable – exception to the duty of allegiance to a state during a war. Drawing on Hobbesian themes, Desai insisted that a specific event – the fall of Singapore – had convinced the surrendered Indian troops of the British Army that Britain was no longer capable of protecting their interests. Further, he questioned the very premise of the ‘waging war against the King’ charge, by arguing that during a war of liberation the justice of the challenger eclipsed the security of the challenged.
Desai's approach influenced Radhabinod Pal, who would take these arguments to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Pal, like Desai, took as his starting point the differing interests of the powerful states and their colonies. He argued that the Allies’ motives for creating the new charge of ‘crimes against peace’ were highly suspect, considering their own history of violence towards the non-Western world. Would it not potentially immobilize the struggle against colonialism? And, pace Hobbes, could not a colonized state's duty of allegiance to the society of states be relinquished?
1 R. West, The New Meaning of Treason (1964), 369–70.
2 Home Department, Government of India, ‘Memorandum on Policy towards Jifs, Hifs and Other Traitors or Collaborators with the Enemy’ (1 November 1945), at 1: IOR: L/P&J/12/771, British Library, Asian and African Studies (BL).
3 Ram, M. (ed.), Two Historic Trials in Red Fort: An Authentic Account of the Trial (1946), 19 Google Scholar.
4 For a fuller account, see P.W. Fay, The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945 (1994), 476–7.
5 J. Nehru, ‘Foreword’, in Ram, supra note 3, iii.
6 B.J. Desai, I.N.A. Defence. Subject People's Right to Fight for Freedom (1945), v.
7 Ram, supra note 3, 145–6.
8 Ibid., 146.
9 Ibid., 142–3, 144, 146.
10 Ibid., 144.
11 Ibid., 6.
12 Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the Laws of England, (1790), Vol. 1, 369–70Google Scholar, available at www.gale.com/primary-sources/eighteenth-century-collections-online.
13 An Act Concerning the Rights of American Citizens in Foreign States, Fortieth Congress (1868), 15 Stat. 223.
14 Rex v. Lynch (1903) I K.B. 444, at 459.
15 Hobbes, T., Tuck, R. and Silverthorne, M. (eds.), On the Citizen (1998), 7:18Google Scholar; see also Sreedhar, S., Hobbes on Resistance: Defying the Leviathan (2013), 140–1Google Scholar.
16 Hobbes, T. and Martinich, A.P. (ed.) Leviathan: Parts I and II (2005), 21:22Google Scholar.
17 Hobbes and Martinich, supra note 16, 21:21.
18 Sreedhar, supra note 15, 140.
19 Hobbes and Martinich, supra note 16, 15:4–5; see also Hoekstra, K., ‘Hobbes and the Foole’, Political Theory 25 (1997), 250, at 622–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Ram, supra note 3, 118.
21 Ibid., 110.
22 K.N. Katju, ‘Introduction’, in Desai, supra note 6, iv–v.
23 ‘Speech of Mr. B.J. Desai, Advocate’ (1930), at 3: Bhulabhai Desai papers, 1st and 2nd part, Nehru Memorial Library.
24 ‘Indian Congress Differences’, The Times, 15 August 1939, 11.
25 ‘Assembly Rejects Finance Bill’, Hindustan Times, 20 November 1940, 1.
26 ‘Bill for Propaganda’, Hindustan Times, 20 November 1940, 4.
27 Ram, supra note 3, 154.
28 Ibid., 153.
29 Ibid., 141.
30 Auchinleck to GO's-in C, Commands (12 February 1946), at 1: Eur: Mss F274/95, BL (original emphasis).
31 Ibid., 4.
32 ‘Coalition Policy Defined, Mr. Lloyd George's Pledges’, The Times, 6 December 1918, 9.
33 F. Larnaude and A. de Lapradelle, Examen de la responsibilité pénale de l'empereur Guillaume II (1918), 12, available at data.decalog.net/enap1/liens/fonds/F8G90.pdf. Thanks to Julien Anglade for translating excerpts from the report.
34 Ibid., 16–17 (emphasis added).
35 Larnaude and de Lapradelle, supra note 33, 9 (original emphases).
36 Ibid., 10.
37 Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (signed 28 June 1919, entered into force 10 January 1920), Consolidated Treaty Series, C. Parry (ed.) (1969–81), Vol. 225, 285.
38 Lansing, R., ‘Some Legal Questions of the Peace Conference’, American Journal of International Law 13 (1919), 631, at 647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 A.I. Vyshinskii, ‘O zadachakh nauki sovetskogo sotsialisticheskogo prava’, Pravda, 26 July 1938, 3.
40 Ibid., 4. Thanks to Valentyna Polunina for translating this excerpt.
41 ‘Russian Criminal Code, as Amended with Notes’ (24 November 1933), at 8: State Department, Judicial Branch of Government, 861.04, available at www.fold3.com/image/1/60254787.
42 For a summary of this article, see ‘Recent Tendencies in Soviet law’ (14 September 1937), at 27: State Department, Judicial Branch of Government, 861.04, available at www.fold3.com/image/1/60254464.
43 Report of Court Proceedings in the Case of the Anti-Soviet ‘Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites’: Heard before the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, March 2–13, 1938 (1938), 694.
44 Ibid., 694–5.
45 Ibid., 695.
46 A.N. Trainin, ‘Uchenie o souchastii’, in N.F. Kuznetsova (comp.), Trainin, Izbrannye proizvedeniia (2004).
47 A. Farrin [Trainin], ‘The Responsibility for Nazi Crimes’, Soviet Monitor, 27 August 1943: FO 371/34377, TNA.
48 Ibid., 2–3.
49 Ibid., 3.
50 Ibid.
51 Trainin, A.N., and Vishinski, A.Y. (eds.), Hitlerite Responsibility under Criminal Law, (translated by Rothstein, A.) (1945), 42.Google Scholar
52 Ibid., 37.
53 Ibid., 10, 11.
54 Ibid., 84.
55 Ibid.
56 International Military Tribunal for the Far East, The Tokyo Major War Crimes Trial, R.J. Pritchard (ed.), (1998), Vol. 2, Indictment, 2–9 (IMTFE).
57 Ibid., 3–4.
58 Quilliam to Prime Minister, ‘Report on the Proceedings . . .’ (29 January 1948), at 50: EA2 1948/36B 106/3/22 Part 7, National Archives of New Zealand.
59 Northcroft, ‘Suggested Formula upon Indictment’ (18 August 1948), at 1: 3DRL 2481 Series 4/8/19, Webb papers, Australian War Memorial.
60 IMTFE, supra note 56, Vol. 36, 16775–16776.
61 Ibid., 16776.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid., 16777.
64 IMTFE, supra note 56, Vol. 88, 42392.
65 IMTFE, supra note 56, Vol. 98, 47718.
66 R.J. Aldrich, Intelligence and the War against Japan: Britain, America and the Politics of Secret Service (2000), 345.
67 See, for example, Mountbatten's telegram to London, requesting guidance over whether he should use Japanese troops to guard the oil refineries at Palembang in light of American press complaints about the British use of Japanese forces. (Chiefs of Staff Committee Joint Planning Staff (14 December 1945), at 227: CAB 79/42, TNA.) It was agreed he could use Japanese troops if no others were available. (Chiefs of Staff Committee Joint Planning Staff (23 December 1945), Annex 2, at 332: CAB 79/42, TNA.)
68 N. Nakazato, Neonationalist Mythology in Postwar Japan: Pal's Dissenting Judgment at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (2016), 102.
69 Mackay to Department of External Affairs, Canberra (18 December 1945), at 4: A1067/1/M46/9/7, National Archives of Australia.
70 Nakazato, supra note 68, 100–1.
71 Patrick to Normand (c. January 1947), at 5: LCO 2/2992, TNA.
72 Röling, B.V.A. and Cassese, A. (eds.), The Tokyo Trial and Beyond: Reflections of a Peacemonger (1993), 28–9Google Scholar.
73 Patrick to Normand (c. January 1947), at 1: LCO 2/2992, TNA.
74 Dening to Sargent (30 April 1947): FO 371/66552, TNA.
75 Ibid.
76 Garner (20 May 1947): FO 371/66553, TNA.
77 IMTFE, supra note 56, Pal Dissent, Vol. 105, 103.
78 Ibid., 70.
79 Ibid, 239.
80 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, ‘The Blue Series’ (1947–49), Vol. 2, 149.
81 IMTFE, supra note 56, Pal Dissent, Vol. 105, 239.
82 IMTFE, supra note 56, Pal Dissent, Vol. 108, 1226 (original emphasis).
83 Nehru to West Bengal Governor-General (29 November 1948): 489-CJK/49 (1948), National Archives of India (NAI).
84 Pal to K.P.S Menon (4 May 1948): 489-CJK/49 (1948), NAI.
85 V.K.K. Menon to K.P.S. Menon (4 August 1948): 489-CJK/49 (1948), NAI.
86 These two approaches would be precisely replicated later in the ‘third world approaches to international law’ (TWAIL) literature. See, for example, Anghie, A. and Chimni, B.S., ‘Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflicts’, Chinese Journal of International Law 2 (2003), 77, at 79–84 Google Scholar; and Rajagopal, B., ‘International Law and its Discontents: Rethinking the Global South’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 106 (2012), 176, at 177 Google Scholar.
87 Sarkar, B.K., ‘Foreword: The Bose-Gandhi Polarity in Indian Politics’, in Ghosh, J.N., Netaji Subhas Chandra: Political Philosophy of Netaji, History of Azad Hind Government, I.N.A. and International Law (1946), at xi Google Scholar.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
