Was WWII Captain Nirmal Chand a prisoner or mutineer? What court trying his executioners decided

Exactly 80 years ago, a trial began that starkly brought out the brutality of war.

Captain Nirpal Chand of the 2/17 Dogras was one of 62,000 soldiers of the colonial Indian Army defending Singapore from the Japanese who became prisoners of war in February 1942 when the island surrendered.

Forty thousand of these soldiers volunteered for the Indian National Army. which had been formed a few weeks before by General Mohan Singh with Japan’s support. But Singh soon became sceptial about Japan’s commitment to arming the force to liberate India. He was arrested on December 29, 1942. The Indian National Army was disbanded.

A little while later, it was resurrected by Rash Bahari Bose and handed over to Subhash Chandra Bose when he reached Singapore in July 1943.

Chand had joined Mohan Singh’s Indian National Army but refused to participate in the reconstituted force.

A few months after Mohan Singh was arrested, the first of 17,000 Indians were shipped by Japan to forced labour camps in Papua New Guinea. At least 10,500 men died, most from starvation, sickness or overwork. Dozens were shot escaping. But the officers that protected them as long as they could.

Chand’s men were among the 3,000 sent to the island of New Guinea. They arrived there in May 1943. Later that year, he angered the Japanese by leading a hunger strike to demand better conditions. In early 1944, American troops invaded parts of the island, and in April the Japanese decided to move to a new camp 300 km away. With the men already emaciated, it was a death sentence for most.

At a halt midway, on April 22, 1944, Chand refused to allow his men to move as they were getting further away from the Americans and the possibility of being rescued. After tense negotiation and many threats, he refused to budge, so the Japanese commandant, Captain Mitsuba Hisaneo, decided to execute him.

Mitsuba and three other Japanese soldiers took Chand away from the other prisoners of war. While one of them kept watch to ensure the Indians could not see their actions, the second sat on his stomach, while Mitsuba held his hands down. Then the fourth, using Mitsuba’s samurai sword, thrust it into Chand’s throat.

Chand died a few minutes later. They buried him there.

After the war, Australian troops rescued the Indians. On the island of New Guinea they found only 11 survivors of the 3,000 who had been sent there. They nursed the men back to life and investigated the atrocities. Two survivors had been part of Chand’s group and identified the Japanese involved – these former guards were now themselves prisoners of war.

The trial began on March 15, 1946, in Rabaul, Papua New Guinea. There were four army officers as court members, a prosecutor and a defence officer both with legal qualifications, and a civilian Japanese interpreter.

As the members of the court did not have legal experience, a judge advocate explained the nuances of the law. In a way, he acted as the judge, while the court was in effect the jury. Unlike most other trials where the Japanese disputed the evidence, here they agreed to the facts – they had killed Chand.

Their defense was that the Indians were not prisoners of war but their allies, as they had been in the Indian National Army. They had applied Japanese military law, under which the execution had been legal, they contended.

Captain Mistuba Hisaneo was in command when Chand was beheaded. Describing what had happened, Mitsuba said that on the way to the new camp, Chand refused to move further and instigated his men, armed with sticks, stones and machetes, to threaten the Japanese.

Mitsuba tried to reason with Chand but he retorted, “If you want to kill me, you can kill me.” As Mitsuba had been ordered to take disciplinary action if there was trouble, he decided to behead Chand. “I carried out the execution of Nirpal Chand myself,” he told the court.

According to the Japanese military code, when there was violence by a mob in the face of the enemy, mutineers could be executed without trial. “I firmly believed my actions were lawful in this instance,” Mitsuba said. “There was no other way out”

The evidence from the three other Japanese present – two officers and a lance-corporal – was similar.

There was one statement that was not commented upon then but later used by the prosecution to devastating effect. Asked what they had done when the Indian prisoners of war instigated by Chand had armed themselves with machettes, Lance-Corporal Hibino Kazuo said they had been confiscated.

For the closing, Lieutenant DGE Hill put up the best defense possible. Besides emphasising key aspects of Mitsuba’s statements, he added that it was irrelevant whether the Indians were in the Indian National Army.

Even as prisoners of war, their treatment should be judged by Japanese law as Japan had not ratified the Geneva Convention. Under their law, Chand’s mutiny meant death. Of the three officers, they were platoon commanders in the field who had been told Japanese law applied to the Indians.

“Their belief was a reasonable one considering the circumstances and their knowledge as junior officers,” Hill said.

The prosecution, Captain JD Steed, was equally passionate. He said what had been done was illegal even under Japanese law. Execution without a trial was permissible in “the face of the enemy”, but he said the American troops were nowhere near. He also latched onto Hibino’s statement that the machetes had been taken away from the Indians and the mutineers disarmed. There was also no imminent possibility of insurrection, he said.

The Judge Advocate, Captain JH Watson, said that the onus was on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court had to decide if the beheading of Chand was murder. The killing should have been unlawful, voluntary, deliberate and with malice. If there was any doubt about this, the accused must be acquitted.

If the Indians were considered prisoners of war, international law applied. On the question of whether the Japanese were following orders, the advice was that only legal orders could be followed.

Taking all this into account, the court must disregard their own opinions, Watson said, and judge the evidence as per rules outlined.

The court took 28 minutes to decide. Their verdict was – the three officers were guilty but not Lance-Corporal Hibino. In a further 23 minutes they announced the sentences – 20 years for Misuba and the second officer who had done the beheading and five years for the third who had assisted.

Mitsuba was also charged with killing or ordering the deaths of other Indian prisoners of war. He did so, he said, as some had stolen rice, others had quarrelled and disturbed work. He also shot some who were too sick to march. On March 21, 1946, he was sentenced to be hanged. He received the same sentence in another case on March 22, and a third time on April 4.

On April 13, 1946, Mitsuba committed suicide. He was brought to trial on a fifth case but was already dead by then.

Throughout the trial, the memory of Captain Nirpal Chand shone through. He had given his life protecting his men.

Gautam Hazarika is a Singapore-based researcher and the author of The Forgotten Indian Prisoners of World War II (Penguin Random House India & Pen & Sword UK). His email address is ghazarika70@yahoo.com.sg.