Summary
At their Washington meeting last week, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping affirmed that the US and China were victorious allies in the Second World War. The reference was not innocent. Beijing has shifted from presenting itself as a victim of Japanese aggression to presenting itself as a victor of 1945 and it uses that claim to cast Japan's defence build-up as militarism, resist removal of the UN Charter's enemy-state clauses and loosen the US-Japan alliance at the heart of the San Francisco System.
India, whose soldiers helped roll back Imperial Japan in Burma, is barely present in this contest over memory, largely because its own national movement was split over the war. This Opinion argues India should re-enter the argument and tests that position against the strongest objection: that memory politics distracts from building real capability.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The Trump-Xi summit in Washington last week included a joint affirmation of US-China wartime partnership, prompting unease in Tokyo and a sharp response from Taipei and reopening the question of who gets to define the post-1945 order in Asia.
Standard News
India Must Re-enter the Argument Over 1945
TAN's position is simple: India should stop treating the Second World War as a closed chapter and start treating its memory as what it has become in Asia - an instrument for building or bending, the regional order.
Why this is not a history lesson When Donald Trump and Xi Jinping affirmed in Washington last week that the US and China were the war's victorious allies, they were not reminiscing.
Each leader was using 1945 for present purposes.
- For Beijing, the claim of victory does specific work. It lets China cast Japan as the defeated aggressor, frame Tokyo's rising defence spending as a return to militarism and resist Japan's call to drop the UN Charter's obsolete enemy-state clauses.
- The larger target is the San Francisco System, the US alliance network built around the 1951 peace settlement with Japan. A story in which America and China won the war together and Japan lost it is a story in which the US-Japan alliance looks like an anomaly.
China changed its story, deliberately In the Mao era, the war was awkward for the Communist Party, because Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist armies did much of the conventional fighting.
From the 1980s, the war became a narrative of Japanese aggression and China's suffering. Under Xi, the emphasis has moved again - from victim to victor. Historian Rana Mitter has traced how this shift supports China's claim to the top of the global hierarchy. The difference matters: a victim asks for acknowledgement, a victor asks for authority.
And
India says almost nothing India's silence is striking because its claim is real. Indian soldiers fought from North Africa and Italy to Southeast Asia and the Indian Army was central to driving Imperial Japan out of Burma.
Yet India's memory of the war is fractured at home. Congress objected to India being dragged into the war without consultation and later launched Quit India; the Communists switched sides after Germany invaded the Soviet Union; Subhas Chandra Bose sought German and Japanese help against the British.
With no agreed national account, the sacrifice never became political capital.
The honest objection The strongest case against TAN's view is that memory is a distraction.
China's victor narrative works because China is powerful, not because its story is persuasive. India, on this view, should spend its energy on capability - defence, manufacturing, technology - rather than relitigating a war that divides Indians and could complicate ties with Japan, now one of India's closest partners.
Why the
position still holds That objection assumes India must choose between memory and capability. It does not. Narratives decide how capability is read: the same Japanese defence budget is "deterrence" in one story and "militarism" in another.
Silence is not neutrality - it hands the frame to whoever speaks. And India's memory need not be anti-Japanese. It can tell a third story: that the war in Asia was fought in large part by colonised Asians who were then left out of the settlement.
That story weakens any two-victor version of 1945 and supports a more plural order in which India has a rightful place.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
More than 2.3 million Indians served under arms in the Second World War and about 14 million took part in war production.
-
EAM S.
-
Jaishankar cited these figures at the Russia-India-China foreign ministers' meeting in June 2020 and called India's post-war marginalisation a historical injustice.
-
The US ally in China during the war was the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek, not the People's Republic, which was founded in 1949 under Mao Zedong.
-
The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco ended the state of war between Japan and the Allied powers and anchors the US hub-and-spokes alliance system in Asia.
-
Articles 53 and 107 of the UN Charter contain the enemy-state clauses directed at the Second World War Axis powers.
-
The United Nations was founded in 1945 by the war's victorious powers.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The full-strength counter-argument, built in three layers: why power beats narrative, why 1945 splits Indian memory and why it risks friction with Japan.
Why India's memory of 1945 is not anti-Japanese at all, including the Tokyo tribunal dissent of Justice Radhabinod Pal that Japan still remembers.
How Beijing's shift from victim to victor maps directly onto its campaign against the enemy-state clauses and the San Francisco System.
The exact condition under which TAN would abandon this position and a four-part framework for what re-entering the argument should actually look like.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free