Does Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk ignore the role of the Indian army? - BBC News

From a demographic point of view, the number of Indian soldiers "there" in Europe would have been very small. While "Empire" troops (Canadian, South African, Australian, Indian, etc) were indeed given serving opportunities for training and otherwise, the main 99% chunk of folks were going to be white Englishmen. The BEF's operation was not a defense-of-the-empire operation. So the urgency to have "all hands on deck" would not have been there, and was not there. Once the BEF was absorbed back to Britain and the desert war evolved, the Indians, Australians, etc, would go on to play pivotal roles in the British Army's actions. But prior to December 7th, 1941, you would sadly be able to count them on one hand.

As to the role of Indian troops in WW2, in general, it should be noted that sadly, their two largest operations would be insurrections against the British at Japanese prodding and action against the Japanese in Burma as part of Field Marshall Slim's 14th Army. And the traitorous activities were naturally going to capture more of the media than the bravery as part of the 14th. To be niggly, a solitary Indian could have been put in the film but then you'd have had to have a black as well to represent the one or two Jamaican Royal Navy sailors that would have been there too. Etc, etc, etc.

The biggest British complaint is the lack of pre-operation combat. "They didn't just wake up in Dunkirk" wrote a British soldier in a blog. But to do so would have taken up more time than the movie had. Dunkirk could easily be a "Band Of Brothers" type series and the evacuation itself wouldn't even be discussed until season 4. That's how much stuff would need to be covered. Also, the German attrocity complainers have been silent so far. As have the "cowardly French" crowd.

If they were at Dunkirk, yes.