Though I’ve always been proud of the Sikh tradition in military service — particularly in the First and Second World Wars — the fact that the British Raj designated certain ethno-religious groups as martial races makes me uneasy. And recently I’ve been reading a book on the Gurkha regiments, (Byron Farwell’s The Gurkhas), and after reading a number of chapters I’m ready to throw out the designation entirely.
For those who are unfamiliar, the Gurkhas (or Gorkhas) come from a region of Nepal west of Kathmandu, and have been actively recruited by the British for service as mercenaries since 1815. It so happened that the British discovered the Gurkhas’ military aptitude after defeating them in a series of particularly tough battles — just as they did with the Sikhs, the Marathas, and indeed, the Zulus (all of whom would be designated “martial races”; see the full list here). Often, troops from one recently conquered region would be instrumental in defeating the next group (the Gurkhas were deployed in the Anglo-Sikh Wars, for instance).
As a side-note, though most Gurkha regiments joined the Indian army at independence, the British did retain a small number of Gurkhas for the British Army after 1947 — and they still actively recruit them today (on a fully voluntary basis, of course). Gurkhas were deployed in the Falklands’ War, in Kosovo, and are now in Afghanistan. Retired Gurkhas are also probably going to be deployed to monitor the fragile peace agreement between the Maoists and the new government of Nepal. Joining the Gurkha regiments in the British Army is considered desirable, but it’s a tough gig to get: one of the physical tests in order to be accepted involves running uphill for 40 minutes with a 70 pound bag of stones strapped to your back!
The author of the book on the Gurkhas is mainly a military historian, not an anthropologist, so it’s probably too much to expect to ask him to deconstruct the idea of “martial races.” But it’s extremely frustrating that in episode after episode Farwell seems to reiterate a few straightforward stereotypes as explaining the Gurkhas’ effectiveness in battle on behalf of the British: they are simple peasants, they are hardened by life in a mountainous region, and they have a strong sense of cultural identity. The same could be said of many other ethnic groups, most of whom were not designated “martial races.” So why the Gurkhas?
It seems hard to escape the conclusion that “martial race” is a convenient term created by the British to continue military recruiting patterns favorable to the progress of imperial expansionism. The authors of the Wikipedia entry on “martial races” have stated the problems with the term quite well:
Martial Race was a designation created by officials of British India. The British officials described these races as naturally warlike and aggressive in battle, and to possess qualities like courage, loyalty, self sufficiency, physical strength, resilience, orderliness, hard working, fighting tenacity and Military tactics. The British recruited heavily from these Martial Races for service in the colonial army. This doctrine of martial races postulated that the ability and desire of the soldier was inherited and that most Indians, with the exception of the specified castes, did not have the requisite genes that would make them warriors. Critics of this theory state that the Indian rebellion of 1857 may have played a role in reinforcing the British belief in Martial races. During this event some Indian troops (known as “Sepoys”), particularly in Bengal, mutinied, but the “loyal” Sikhs, Punjabis, Dogras, Gurkas, Garhwalis and Pakhtuns (Pathans) did not join the mutiny and fought on the side of the British Army. From then on, this theory was used to the hilt to accelerate recruitment from among these races, whilst discouraging enlistment of “disloyal” Bengalis and high-caste Hindus who had sided with the rebel army during the war.
The geography and culture of these martial races had common marks, such as hilly and mountainous terrain, a basis as hunting or agricultural societies, and a history of conflict, whether internally or with external groups. A case in point are the Gurkhas, who challenged British imperial expansion and gained the respect of their enemies for their fighting prowess and tenacity, thus earning them their reputation and their continued employment in the British Army. Some authors like Heather Streets rebuff this Martial Races Ideology stating that the military authorities puffed up the images of the martial soldiers by writing regimental histories, and by extolling the kilted Scots, kukri-wielding Gurkhas and turbaned Sikhs in numerous paintings. The Martial Race theory has also been described as a clever British effort to divide and rule the people of India for their own political ends.” (link)
The damning parallel between the groups that were loyal during the Mutiny and those who would be designated as “Martial Races” later seems hard to escape. Though I generally try and avoid paranoid speculation, the idea of “divide and rule” also seems to be relevant here: by keeping the various ethnic regiments of the Indian army divided along linguistic or ethnic lines, they prevented them from congealing along racial (as in, brown vs. white) ones.
For better or worse, groups once designated by the British as “martial races” still tend to carry that badge with pride. But it’s a dubious source of honor, and also an extremely dubious way of asserting one’s manhood & masculinity. (How much violence against women has been perpetrated in the service of the myth of Jat or Pathan/Pashtun martial masculinity?) I think it would be better if we just threw out all those old myths, spattered as they are with the blood of wars of subjugation.
Razib – stop whipping out that old saw culture. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest…when an alliance of Germanic tribes…ambushed and wiped out three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
The outcome of the battle established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next few hundred years…The Roman Empire never was able to conquer Germania, although many attempts were made.
boy, you don’t know what you’re getting into! the defeat upon varus was a temporary set back. the campaigns of germanicus to the elbe show quite clearly how easy it was to cut through germans with a good roman army. see chapter 2 of The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians to review the current consensus that economic factors (lack of taxable revenue) was the primary determinant of the lack of roman expansion to the east.
Some people will use any chance to get a dig in one Sikhs, anyway chance. Its so f-ing lame.
The idea of a martial race is ltotally lame in my opinion, but, there’s also a cultural memory among Sikhs of trying to be brave in the face of persecution and its a little gut-churning to see that reduced to a flip arguement by people apprently without the knowledge of inclination to learn about our history. I’d say the the legacy of the “martial race” idea among Sikhs is not what leads to our “ultra-macho gold chain, bhangra-rap” stereotype, nor to domestic violence. I think its really just the stuff of puffed out kids. Sociologically, I don’t think the concept of the “martial race” drives much of the sociological dynamic good or ill. Its all taken with a massive grain of salt, and if the British had come up with a “role” for the Sikhs that was not as salutory, I don’t think it would have been embraced.
For one thing, the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a real entity, and Sikhs had been fighting in organized formations for at least a generation by the time of the Anglo-Sikh wars. Those wars were themselves hard-fought and the outcome apparently at times in doubt. There is no doubt there was a infrastructure there before the British came. Sikhs used the military as an economic vehicle, and it worked quite well.
There can be no racial or in this case religous inclination to so-called “martial values” however
Invincible armies have always been like unsinkable battleships – unsinkable until something sinks them!
btw, i agree with this.
This is clearly off-hand and blaze generalizations. Can you connect the people who served in WW I and WW II with the so-called Daaku’s of today by any strech of the imagination? Only if you want to go along with some “bhangra-rap ultra macho” paradigm caricature of Sikh-Punjabi culture
Oh, yeah let’s also say something bad about Jattzz, because we all know they are sharabi goonda pindus. heartfelt breast-beating of “our community” but also flippant
p.s. not to threadjack, but hermann, the warleader of the cherusci who beat the romans was also named ‘arminius.’ he had roman training 🙂
By the 1900’s Punjab was a hot-bed of inquilabi activity, and it was a multi-religous movement. The Shaheedi Jathas of thousands upon thousands of people in the 1900’s who stood in front of British soldiers who beat them at times to death should be looked into by commetors on this thread. There was never a hint of violence as men and women walked toward those beatings, and the commitment to non-violence was quite moving according to commentators of the time.Info here on a leader of the non-violent movement in Punjab in the 1920s, Master Tara Singh
I don’t mean by any strech of the imagination to direct that at Amardeep or the post, but to the comments. Amardeep is clearly more well-placed than me to speak on these issues 🙂
Sahej I was just trying to balance the “chest thumping” with some “breast beating” 🙂 I a non religious person so I tend to discount the role of religion in everything. But I don’t see any generalization in my comment and the way you read my Jatt comment is far removed from what I was saying.
Hm, shaanti shaanti. I think it was 12 o clock where I was typing. 🙂 (bara vagh gaya — meaning it struck 12 o clock being a joke/insult that Sikhs get nonsensically angry every day at 12 o clock).
But the generalization is that “Jatts” are actually invested culturally in “chest-thumping”. Am I wrong about that implication of your statement? I think culturally, what we see today as daaku culture is not the same as punjabi culture, its a poor substitute in the same way ghetto thug life is a poor representation of the more rich vein of african american culture.
I also think most everybody knows that many Misl leaders were not Jatt, as well as that the Gurujis themselves were not by any stretch of the imagination from a jatt background.
I think this particular culture of chest thumping is foreign even to Punjab; its a function of our diaspora….with good, bad and obnoxious qualities. Clearly the arrogant veneer of some sikh diaspora culture has rubbed people the wrong way though
You won’t believe the number of times people have told me “No, no, it really is true. Sardars go crazy at noon.”. What the…
OK, given the number of people who are going to believe anything, I’m going to make up some shit of my own. Did you know Mallus don’t pee at all between Christmas and New Year’s day?
yeah, people will say that like its the gods-honest truth, its pretty funny
Sahej, I think we are probably talking about the fine line between pride and prejudice. Sacrifice and fight for just causes in sikh History can be a source of pride but belief in sikhs being a “martial race” might be a source of prejudice.
I agree with you friend 🙂
Razib,
Well the Romans sure knew what they had gotten into and kept clear of the Rhine for a loong time after that. Hermann was a hostage raised among the Romans (which as you know was a common way of keeping the peace in the days gone by among warring groups). The Romans were great at set-piece battles, well disciplined (and brutally so in ways that terrified even their adversaries). We know what decimation truly means right? They were lousy at unconventional warfare and prevailed thanx to numerical superiority.
Thanks Kush for the link to the Vaidya regiments. About 15-20 years ago the Indian Army and Raksha Mantri floated a trial balloon about the idea of gradually phasing out communal regiments (which in any case are confined to the infantry). The protests poured in from all sides. My dad’s friend a Madrasi from Tiruchi who had served with the Punjab Regiment was fuming (in unprintable Punjabi of course) when we met him one evening. The mingling or (mil-jhul) of identities fascinates everyone. The movie industry is one place where this happens that we know about, the armed forces is another place that few of us know about.
Peasant soldiers have been a long part of India’s military history (1000s of years?).
I have almost finished reading Kiran Desai’s ‘The inheritance of loss’, which does have a lot of Nepalis/Gorkhas in northern India. Still trying to make my mind up about the book…
I was just going to mention The Inheritance of Loss! In terms of the book, I found the plot a little slow (but I’m OK with that) but the written words magnificent.
Anyway, this is a really wonderful post, Amardeep. I love that I can learn about history of the subcontinent AND lipstick on the same blog. I haven’t had the time to read all the comments, but it’s proving to be really interesting so far.
“Martial races” theory is one of the many baloneys floated by Brits.. You don’t need anything special to train killers.. You can tell motivating stories about nationality / patriotism / God / religion and a little bit of alcohol on the sides would help..
bravo on keeping thread composure! i thought this might devolve into a flame war, but it’s been rather calm and invigorating.
shiva, i disagree with some details of what you are saying re: romans, but whatever. read heather’s book if you have time, it’s a good one!
yawn
The Gurkhas – Britain’s oldest allies 1997-Dec-4 Gurkha pensions under ‘race’ scrutiny 2002-Feb-4 Gurkha hopefuls undeterred 2003-Feb-24 Gurkhas make UK pensions demand 2006-May-22
razib,
bravo on keeping thread composure! i thought this might devolve into a flame war, but it’s been rather calm and invigorating.
How.. patronizing. Bravo on your ability to remain sober tonight. I’m also highly pleased that you haven’t soiled yourself today — I knew you could do it, I really did! My pride swells with your ability to not defecate in your clothes.
sic, i’m insulted, offended even. educate yourself!
sic semper tyrannis,
you sir exhibit the worst features of the blogosphere! a gentlemen is not something you certainly will ever be called!
yours truly, c.v. snicker
Well, link Ambedkar deconstructs the “martial races” theory by Brits
Too bad Ambedkar should have become the Prime minister..
I don’t know about Gurkhas or Zulus, but Punjabis are definitely a “martial race.” Those of you who say otherwise have never met my ex-wife. Or my family. Or…me.
Shiva, I’m going to disagree with the notion that the Romans were only good at “set-piece” warfare. Call it what you want; they kicked some serious booty for quite a while, and they were innovators in the use of combined arms. They were pretty flexible on the battlefield, and that’s why they won so often.
And why would anyone be surprised that when India tried to disband the units arranged along ethnic lines? Pride is a powerful force. If you tell one group of people that they’re good at fighting, they will believe it. If they fight for you, so much the better. Then their own belief works in their and your favor. Belief is a powerful thing.
Would anyone here disagree that Israel as a state is a powerful nation, and not an adversary to be trifled with? So Jews are great warriors. True or false?
The truth is that practically every race has a great martial tradition. The stories of war are the stories of legend. Anglo-Saxons (Saxons! Good lord!) are a “warrior” race. The British, the French (if you count Asterix and not WWII), the Italians, the Thais, the Filipinos (you gotta be badass if you make the US military invent a higher caliber round and gun to take you out), various African groups, various Indian groups, Russians, Germans, Eskimos, Mexicans, Aregentines, Native Americans, Maoris, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Burmese, and quite a few people who live in South Central LA…hell, even the flippin’ Swiss…everyone’s got a martial legend or two or twelve or 3,000.
And why shouldn’t they? First, there’s some truth to it all. They all fought wars, and at least avoided ass-kickage long enough to develop a name for themselves. Second, the pride in their martial prowess served to drive them. Whether it’s a belief you inherit from your father or from a colonialist imperial officer, you’ll fight a lot harder if you think you’re the baddest mofo on the front lines. So yeah, it’s disturbing that the British could use this to more readily command troops and rule our peoples, but at the same time, it’s human nature to take pride in what you are told you excel at. Especially if it’s fighting…that’s almost as good as saying you come from a lineage that produces good basketball players.
Or surgeons.
chet snicker,
you sir exhibit the worst features of the blogosphere! a gentlemen is not something you certainly will ever be called!
I think you meant to say “a gentleman certainly is not something you will ever be called” — what you wrote says the chance that I’ll be called a gentleman is below 100%, such as 100% minus epsilon.
razib,
Before you froth at the mouth, maybe you should educate yourself on a parable I assumed you knew already.
I merely illustrated how your proclivity to mention what had not happened was irritating, so I similarly detailed what had not happened in your day. Nothing I said was dishonest or a lie, but as you have found it, it can be annoying nonetheless.
BTW, I found Between the Mosque and the Military if not eye opening at least exotic, haven’t seen critical political analyses about Pakistan from Pakistan. Haqqani does talk about the three pillars – Islam, India and American Aid and the perception of India as a factitious entity by their Military leadership. Perhaps the martial race idea does play a part, am yet to meet a Pakistani who calls a spade as one, you hear them all talk about how honest and good military rule has been for them (time and again). A classic case of a martial government romanticizing that idea and subverting religion in support. perhaps there are dissenters, please lets meet.
HM,
There are various books currently available which have been written by recent British authors on the Anglo-Sikh Wars, and which include the historical anecdote I mentioned in post #33.
None of which has anything to do with my previous comment, especially in light of the first section (before my response to Razib) in #33.
Sahej,
Brilliant posts by you, my friend, especially #52 & 60.
Ikram,
Very good point and one which I was going to mention myself. The Khalsa army during Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s time was already organised and trained according to European techniques due to the employment of Napoleonic French officers.
Razib,
You’ve been a little prickly recently buddy, have I accidentally done something to offend you ?
Have you considered that it may often be a combination of the two — cultural factors within certain groups driving them towards greater prowess on the battlefield and an ability to deploy appropriate strategic & tactical approaches to achieve victory ?
Salil also makes some superb points in post #76.
Regarding the whole “martial race” thing — As I said before, I don’t think this is necessarily true, especially in the case of Sikhs (for the reasons explained previously, along with the fact that a) ancestrally-speaking Sikhs are composed of various different groups, many of which were not traditionally involved in warfare pre-Khalsa, and b) numerically there was a strong Punjabi bias during the formation of the Khalsa in Guru Gobind Singh’s time, but it was actually composed of people from all over the Indian subcontinent).
I would say that — very broadly-speaking — maybe some groups are predisposed to being more aggressive due to genetic/hormonal/psychological factors, but generally I think that the overall environment that the people live in plays a part in affecting exactly how “warlike” they become — depending on whether the culture encourages or disapproves of such behaviour. For example, historically you could say that the Japanese were a “martial race”, but not so much in modern times. The same analogy would apply to Romans vs modern-day Italians.
So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that cultures are often “martial”, rather than the “races” (for want of a better word).
However, in that regard some cultures definitely are more warlike than others, either aggressively or defensively (or both).
Indianoguy posted an excellent link on the News tab recently — it’s a 90-second clip depicting how the most well-known religions have geographically spread over the map of the world, including wars fought in their names. Apart from the fact that it erroneously shows the birth of Krishna as marking the “start of Hinduism”, it’s quite informative. Check it out here.
(Apologies for the multiple posts)
The Turnip,
That was a legacy of the times before these people adopted Sikhism. The formation of the Khalsa in particular was supposed to eradicate these differences and tendency towards “hereditary” professions; there is supposed to be no formal distinctions between Sikhs in this regard and certainly not the concept of “different kinds of Sikhs”.
It was due to aggression towards them within India and, later, from the northwest, along with the teachings of the Sikh Gurus and their efforts to militarise the adherents of the faith, especially the actions of Guru Gobind Singh.
They were supposed to engage in martial training along with their “normal” daily occupations. Ideally, every Sikh is supposed to be a warrior (to some degree or other) along with whatever else they may do for a living, as symbolised by the fact that baptised Sikhs carry a kirpan (ideally it’s supposed to be a full-length sword rather than just a small “dagger”). However, the spiritual side is supposed to be dominant, as mentioned previously; Guru Gobind Singh illustrated the point most pertinently when he said that a Sikh should “try to be a saint first before you try to be a soldier”.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that, technically, there is not meant to be any distinction between male and female Sikhs in this regard. However, for various reasons (some of them obvious), male Sikhs have tended to be more actively involved in martial pursuits than the women, although historically there have also been female Sikh generals (pre-colonial times).
“I never knew Marathas were classified as a Martial race by the British until now!”
I think they were first classified as ‘martial race’, but were later removed from the list.
I don’t think any South Indian group was named ‘martial race’. Officers absolutely hated having to serve in the Madras Army, and earnestly tried to get transferred to the northern armies whenever possible.
later they experimented with ‘Coorgs’, a group from Karnataka, and the ‘Mappilas’, a muslim group from Kerala, but they found these troops to be ineffective and very hard to control and were later disbanded. these two groups were formally considered ‘criminal races’ before being recruited into the army. so the consensus remained that south india was not a good army recruiting region.
which is funny though, since in the 1700s the east india company fought most of their wars using ‘non-martial races’ ..ie. people from tamil nadu and bengal. The ‘anglo’ side of the anglo-sikh wars was mostly troops from bihar/awadh. Who gave the british the most trouble? Hyder Ali/ Tippu Sultan and their armies of Mysore.
And calling tamils an ‘effeminate race’ would not explain the tamil tigers.
It’s also funny how all the wikipedia entries for the so-called ‘martial races’ state that
“Martial Race is a designation created by officials of British India to describe “races” (peoples) that were thought to be naturally warlike and aggressive in battle, and to possess qualities like courage, loyalty, self sufficiency, physical strength, resilience, orderliness, hard working, fighting tenacity and military strategy. “
but conveniently fail to mention that the martial races were also characterized by simpleness and slow wits.
racist white rulers saying that your people are “dumb, but fight well and obey orders” is NOT something to go around boasting about.
Rubbish. You do not win battles — and certainly not protracted wars — by being “simple” or “slow-witted”, unless your strategy consists solely of brute force and/or overwhelming numbers.
true dat.
the effeminate races are really those who chose not to be the macaca. it is devilishly clever though to emasculate the said people in the eyes of their compatriots by saying – ‘o they are girly-men etc.’
enough of that. the reason i came right now -heh- is to remind you that tomorrow is global orgasm day. i would encourage you to go frolic across the intrasepiate divide and make this discussion moot. go out ye and plant some hybrid seed.
Rubbish. You do not win battles — and certainly not protracted wars — by being “simple” or “slow-witted”, unless your strategy consists solely of brute force and/or overwhelming numbers.
Actually, thats true. The martial races were thought to be ‘slow-witted’ by the British.
Airavat Singh wrote a long paper on the development of military tactics during the late-Mughal to colonialism period. You can read Part 3 here. It is expert stuff and not meant for a casual read of course. And the keen ones will I am sure track down Parts 1 and 2.
The Indian forces is a great believer in the efficacy of training and as a rule thinks the idea of ‘martial races’ etc., is bakwas. A deep desire to serve and reasonably good athletic ability is mostly what they look for.
I constantly find it bemusing that, at least based on regular discussions on the subject on Sepia Mutiny, many desis based in the US appear to have more of a colonial hangup than those of us who actually live in Britain. Indians on this side of the Atlantic, at least the majority born in the UK (if not necessarily the parents’ generation), do not use the British imperial period as their main points of reference regarding self-identity. Sikhs and other groups (rightly or wrongly) identity with more warlike characteristics primarily because of events before the colonial period.
Whether the Brits of the time did or did not identify certain groups as “martial races” is immaterial. I fail to see the constructive logic behind reviving a topic that was superceded by historical events 60 years ago; constantly revisiting archaic colonial issues and complaining about them, whilst providing an interesting talking-point in some ways, is not only like flogging a dead horse, it is like digging up the animal from its grave, using a skilled veterinarian to resuscitate it, and then flogging it to death all over again. It doesn’t exactly add value to modern-day race relations and, in fact, adds further fuel to the fire in the cases of those who still carry a chip on their shoulder against modern-day white Brits — despite the fact that the vast majority of “old colonial hands” in the UK are dead if not extremely old, and there are huge numbers of white people here who have grown up surrounded by Indians and, either socially or through professional experiences, are on very good terms indeed with their British desi counterparts. People like Niall Ferguson are not exactly representative of what very large numbers of English people are like these days, either in their stance towards Indians (especially those born & brought up in the UK) or in their views about the imperial period as a whole.
Correspondingly:
That “badge” existed centuries before the British had any notable influence on the subcontinent.
Someone said they are glad this thread has not become a flame war, I disagree.
What I really want to see is a bust up over who was better — The Romans or the Germanic tribes in the battle of Underholzer Schlegwegstein in 9 AD — and more importantly, who had bigger swords? General Maximus Livia Plurabelle of Rome or Schwanzlucher, the barbarian chieftan who unified the hairy tribes of Germany?
And whose tactics were better and which one threw more stones, bearing in mind climate and exogenous factors like how many were short sighted and so couldnt throw a spear straight?
Enough with the niceties, let’s get all cards on the table.
I constantly find it bemusing that, at least based on regular discussions on the subject on Sepia Mutiny, many desis based in the US appear to have more of a colonial hangup than those of us who actually live in Britain.
If someone continually harped on it, brought it up in utterly irrelevant situations, then yes, I would agree that the perpetrator manifested symptoms of a hangup, but its entirely appropriate to bring this up in an entry about the martial races.
I encourage you to browse through “Castes of Mind” on Amazon.com, to be found here.
George MacMunn, the army historian and martial race “theorist”, who I cited to above, wrote the Martial Races of India in 1933. Dirks says this about that book:
“MacMunn paised the martial races at the expense of the majority of other Indians, though it is clear his praise is mixed, given his clear avowal of the colonial assumption that the martial races were not of marked intelligence. In any case, intelligence in the colonized only bred disloyalty and inscrutability, something about which MacMunn was unembarassed to be contemptuous even in the declining days of the Raj.”
Risible,
Fine. So what ? He wrote that book over 70 years ago and is presumably long deceased. In fact that “assumption” has long been superceded in Britain, considering that a disproportionate number of UK-based Indians are indeed from the so-called “martial races” and are renowned here for academic performance superior to that of white Brits and also for their notable professional & financial success.
What old colonial hands like MacMunn thought is still immaterial. Groups like Sikhs, Rajputs, Marathas etc traditionally identify with certain warlike cultural traits for reasons which had nothing to do with the British colonial period in India, and — as I mentioned previously — such attitudes amongst them existed centuries before the British rose to power. I fail to see the logic or the constructive benefit in anyone pointing the finger at the Brits for this or implying that the modern-day self-identification of the aforementioned groups in this matter is a legacy of British influence at all.
I fail to see the constructive logic behind reviving a topic that was superceded by historical events 60 years ago; constantly revisiting archaic colonial issues and complaining about them, whilst providing an interesting talking-point in some ways, is not only like flogging a dead horse, it is like digging up the animal from its grave, using a skilled veterinarian to resuscitate it, and then flogging it to death all over again. It doesn’t exactly add value to modern-day race relations
I think deconstructing the Martial race myth is not wholly without merit. It did play some part in the contempt West Pakistanis felt for Bengalis.
AlMfD,
You’re right, but the question is whether the people who later became known as (West) Pakistanis historically thought of themselves as a “martial race” before the Brits ever came along. Pathans obviously did, but you’re in a better position than I to comment on other Pakistani groups.
If we’re going to discuss the issue in general, but are not going to point fingers at long-dead people who in many cases obviously made wildly inaccurate assumptions about these groups but were not the reason why they self-identifed as “warriors”, then I think that would definitely be a constructive way forward.
89 Jai Singh
The reason opinions of british commentators is still significant, is because the period beginning around 1800 is one in which many indian communities “rediscovered” themselves and undertook modernization of various kinds, both positive and negative. The reverberations of this rediscovery and redefinition is still being felt and, for good or bad, have shaped each one of us.
As a hindu, one example I would point to is the revival of “vedic hinduism” which tends to somehow end up being colored along the lines of the various aggressive christian protestant groups of the 19th and early 20th century. So one sees rejection of “idol worship” and claims that hindus worship “one god” (a statement that I think is quite confusing and perhaps even meaningless for most hindus) amongst these groups.
As one of the respondents (razib) pointed out, almost all of the surviving tribal/ethnic traditions have some martial claims. Otherwise, they probably wouldnt have survived till today! The real issue then is whether as part of the “modernization”, and here british commentators/propagandists did have an important role, certain groups have placed their “martial” traditions ahead of other traditions.
General Maximus Livia Plurabelle of Rome or Schwanzlucher, the barbarian chieftan who unified the hairy tribes of German
romans tended to utilize the gladius, a short sword of celtiberian origin. more variation among barbarians, but i believe on average they used long slashing swords. roman swords were optimized for close in thrusting.
You’ve been a little prickly recently buddy, have I accidentally done something to offend you ?
nope. don’t recall being prickly. anyway, it is generally difficult to talk to you about sikhs/sikhism because you have a strong (and proud) perspective. that’s OK, i suppose i’d be the same about america or something. no worries.
you have a strong (and proud) perspective
let me elaborate. the irritation i exhibited is the same that i exhibit when jews and hindus talk about how their religion is special because they don’t attempt to convert others. the irritation comes from that that i think that there is some reason to be proud, but there is a lack of perspective that other groups also exhibit the same traits, but the groups in question simply don’t know because they focus on their own groups and the contrasting outgroups. so, the case of sikhs seeming particular martial to the british soldiers, i don’t doubt the sincerity of the claims or the veracity of the records. but surely there were many other soldiers who said many other things and many other situations where local populations seemed particularly martial.
i suppose i’d be the same about america or something. no worries.
I think there is a difference between defending the Western/American achievements on their merit and taking pride in them. I have seen, you, Razib defending the achievements of the West in general, solely on their merit, while on the other hand Jai Singh actually takes pride in the achievements of his Sikh ancestors. There is of course nothing wrong in what Jai does either, but I will suggest that it makes it more difficult to be a neutral and objective observor. Maybe I am wrong about both Razib and Jai which would not be for the first time!
Jai wrote: You’ve been a little prickly recently buddy, have I accidentally done something to offend you ?
Razib is being too kind. The role you’ve chosen — the beardless-defender-of-sikhism-(and oppressed-light-skinned-wimmin’!) — is resulting in you being obnoxious. Something like the irritating greek father in My big fat Greek wedding. It’s also completely unneccessary on a blog that has two turbanned contributors.
Whatever merits you may have as SM’s self-proclaimed British Correspondent (and I, for one, sorely miss PunjabiBoy), you lose them when you broach this topic.