From the Indian perspective, the events in 1945 looked very different. To realise just how different, we need to think beyond borders.

This chapter traces the Indian view of the early days of the Boycott as they appeared in the Indian-owned press in India, which drew the content of their articles mainly from sources in Britain but also from Australia, where some of those correspondents were Indonesian. The Indian owners and editors of these papers could shape opinion, first, by selecting what to report and how much space to give the available news articles. Second, they took strong editorial stances, which were often very different from the content of news articles. Third, they exercised influence by publishing political cartoons. Indian media had few photographic images in 1945 – implementation of the required technologies was slower in India than in Australia – but political cartoons were used to offer a space for dissent and comment. It was such visual material that gained the attention of non-literate audiences.

The press inside India

There were many newspapers in India that were edited, owned, and printed by Indians. Although they all drew content from international sources, each was shaped by regional affiliations and the interests of its audience. Four English-language newspapers are discussed here – all nationalist to some degree, but varied because of being in different parts of India and having owners with different political affiliations in the 1940s. As discussed in Chapter 1, these newspapers are the Free Press Journal of Bombay (FPJB) from the western coast; the Hindusthan Standard (HS) from the eastern city of Calcutta, the capital of Bengal; The Hindu, based in Madras, on the southeast coast; and The People's War (PW), the Communist Party of India newspaper published in Delhi and aiming to be read throughout India.

It is clear from these newspapers that Indians had little idea of what was happening for Australians. There seems to have been no indication, for example, of the length of time it was taking for Australian troops ‘in the islands’ or released prisoners of war to be returned home. Nor was there any awareness of the wave of strikes and loud political protests in Australia and Britain against the persistence of wartime regulations months after the enemies’ surrender.