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.
Whatever else, there is probably a disconnect here in terms of how Sikhs talk about their history. Among ourselves, the narrative is, realistically, one of struggle against odds. One has a tendency to re-double their efforts in time of stress. Thats quite a healthy thing. Given the almost constant peril the community has been in from the start, its a credit that we indeed are generally proud of our heritage. But I don’t think this translates well when we take this conversation to other venues. It seems arrogant. The style of discourse among Sikhs might often be described as speak forcefully but then listen forcefully. And I think there’s an acute lack knowledge or even maybe the desire to know Sikh history and culture, which seems to plague much of the discourse regarding Sikhism in intelligencia. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
Look, the Jai-is-too-pro-Sikh hatred is a bit overblown here. Now, I’m sure people will jump down my throat for saying this, but I think that when it comes to topics that even remotely brush on Sikhs/Punjabis people are quick to jump on the “Punjabis are full of machismo and participate in gang violence; Sikhs are hyper-nationalist terrorists.” I don’t think the majority of people commenting believe these things as facts about the inherent nature of the Sikh or Punjabi communities, but these points come up again and again and again. I mean, Khalistan comes up on the thread about J/K and India’s NW and NE borders. This also happens when we discuss Muslims and Pakistan. These are not particularly neutral topics to begin with, and that is more than ok. Generally speaking, I don’t see Jai’s posts as being big “Yay Sikhs, I am so proud of my ancestors” kind of posts, they generally clarify misperceptions and assumptions regarding the Sikh religion, its tenets/philosophy, and its community. To say that initiated/confirmed Sikhs (Khalsa) are required to engage in martial training because of the religion’s “saint-soldier” principles is 100% true and also stems from pre-British occupation and persecution. That’s just a fact, it’s not a call for pride in the “martial race” label.
To argue that Punjabis have a history of military experience and resistance is also a pre-British fact – how many people came through the (now) Indus Valley in attempts to conquer lands in what is now NW India? No wonder that Punjabis are a) incredibly ethnically diverse (totally trumping the idea of a superior “race”), and b) used to fighting. This doesn’t mark some kind of inherent superiority in arms or a naturally aggressive attitude, it’s just a historical context. And the martial race theory, coincidentally, was historically used by the British to divide communities as well so that they wouldn’t engage in coalitional resistance. It was also used to stereotype communities. I’m not surprised that the British labelled the Bengalis “effeminate,” but it’s important to understand why (and the why is not because Bengalis are effeminate or place a priority on education to the exclusion of military training).
So is the martial race theory bakwas, as was mentioned before? Yes! But there are also a number of non-essentialist, non-“racial” reasons for why different communities may have put a higher priority on military training than on other things.
Let us put things in prespective. One of the most celebrated Indian soldier family is the Cariappa family – they are South Indians. Mallu Christians and Anglo-Indians are the finest pilots in IAF. One of the IAF Chief was a Bengali, so was one of the few RAF fighter officer in WW I. In 1971, the Chief of Indian Army was a Parsee, the Chief of Eastern Command was Sikh, and chief of strategic excutioner was a Jew Indian. So much for martial races.
Let me quote a piece from Saleem Ali, whom I know personally and professionally. The following piece has been published in Pakistani newspapers.
It is an amazing story.
Please note all the following should be in quotes, and is written by Saleem Ali. Please read.
A few months ago, I had the privilege of meeting former Indian Air Marshall Nanda Cariappa at a conference organised by the United Nations Environment Programme in Bangkok. The conference focused on finding ways to use environmental factors as a means of conflict resolution in South Asia. We had originally planned to meet in Islamabad at another event aimed at using science for security and peace-building but visa woes had prevented the Indian delegates from participating. Air Marshall Cariappa jovially told me that he had been to Pakistan once before but that was as “a guest of the government” in 1965. Towards the end of the war, his aircraft was shot down and he was a prisoner of war in Pakistan for four months.
As he recounted, the POWs in those days were well-treated; his account defied contemporary tales of torture that are now part of Bollywood lore or some Western media accounts of the mishandling of detainees by Pakistani intelligence agencies. When Nanda Cariappa was a POW, Red Cross packages were delivered to the Indian POWs, including such items as a copy of the Bhagwad Gita and some special dried fruit from actress Ayesha Parekh.
Perhaps those were the good old days because, despite the conflict, there were still ties of friendship at a human and personal level. For example, President Ayub Khan knew several officers in the Indian army from the pre-independence days and had served under Nanda Cariappa’s father, the legendary Field Marshall Kodandera Madappa Cariappa. Given the enormous respect that President Ayub had for the elder Cariappa, he offered to release his son soon after his arrest to which father Cariappa is reported to have responded fervently: “He is my son no longer. He is the child of this country, a soldier fighting for his motherland like a true patriot. My many thanks for your kind gesture, but I request you to release all or release none. Give him no special treatment.”
It is also interesting to note that the elder Cariappa gained much of his reputation in what are now the tribal lands in the North West Frontier Province. In June 1923, KM Cariappa was transferred to the 1st battalion of the 7th Rajput Regiment (Queen VictoriaÂ’s Own Light Infantry), and moved to Waziristan. There he confronted the tribesmen who gained in his heart tremendous respect for their tenacity of purpose
Why is that troubling? These are related topics.
To say that initiated/confirmed Sikhs (Khalsa) are required to engage in martial training because of the religion’s “saint-soldier” principles is 100% true and also stems from pre-British occupation and persecution.
Yes, Camille. You should be proud of it.
However, all cultures have “soldier-saint”/ “poet-warrior”.
Some examples, Japanese, Native Americans, Scots, Aborginis, wagehera, wagehera………in modern day, General Moshe Dayan wagehera wagehera from Israel. What is IDF in your word?
Tragically, Native Americans are very much in soldier-saint mold but it did not shield them from white man’s disease (small pox).
Legendary Field Marshall Cariappa isn’t just a “South Indian”. He’s a Coorgi. The martial race of the South 😉 wink, wink to denote light sarcasm.
Legendary Field Marshall Cariappa isn’t just a “South Indian”. He’s a Coorgi.
I knew that. But I did not want to box in a small subset.
For others: Field Marshall Cariappa was the highest ranking Indian officer in British Indian Army, and first Indian Chief of Indian Army.
Like it or not there is such a thing as martial culture, especialy if you want a foot soldier. Just entertain the idea of a Jain regiment? The Mahaveers….
Amardeep I find it curios that you said you are proud of the sikh service in WWI, WWII…. Please expand.
Like it or not there is such a thing as martial culture, especialy if you want a foot soldier. Just entertain the idea of a Jain regiment?
Dude, they are Tibetans in Lhasa Scouts, and in Indo-Tibetan Border Security Force. They are considered the best commandos gaurding the Himalayas.
Let me quote the legedary Field Marshall Cariappa:
Cariappa held no truck on commission in the Indian Army and in picturesque, forthright language remarked after the partition, “I don’t care a damn if a man is a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsi or Christian as long as he plays the game to serve our country well. This is all that matters to me.”
1) i am not down with hate-on-jai. enough people throw stones at my comportment that i’m not going to pretend like i don’t live in a glass house.
2) re: punjabis, there it seems a black or white tendency. they’re cool, supercool (bhangra, they dominate bollywood) or they suck (they think they are superior cuz they are light and white and martial). everyone brings prejudices, biases and preconceptions and it is hard to get around this fact of psychology. i don’t know, i’m sure i have them too, and all the stereotypes about sikhs and/or punjabis i’ve gotten from this weblog (the only stereotypes i had in the past was about bengalis since i have with my own eyes in the inability to shut up).
3) i think there are probably average differences between groups on a variety of metrics. i just think it needs to be approached with subtly, nuance and a “thick description” of the genuine variation rather than black & white cut outs. the former is hard in blog/text format when time and space is finite.
peace.
Kush Jains and Tibetans are not the same. Incase you forgot, Tibetans had been considered well enough to be even recruited by sikhs, Also there were some gurkha in ranjit singhs army.
But you tell me why there isnt a Jain regiment?
Simply put at the foot soldier level certain people will find it an Ok occupation.
And who is the recruiter more likely to select? Some one who grows up in rural area enjoying wrestling or some one who can interpert wall street journal for the neighbors.
Razib wrote:- re: punjabis, there it seems a black or white tendency… Careful….Not all punjabis in india were given/accepted \’martial\’ badge. But some of the stereotypes are self inflicted. Eg the reason why amardeep wrote that he was proud of sikh service during wwI,wwII. or why Jai wrote that the \”badge existed before\”.
The real reson at present for the most part is inertia. ie \”Well plenty of people from my area went to the recruiter after finishing school so I went too\”
CLWAT #109 and #112, recruiting foot soldiers is more about economics then martial ability. One point that people aren’t discussing is that familiarity of the profession also plays a role. In my village in Punjab almost all of my father’s generation served in the military and same was true for my grandfather’s generation. They all were in the military because they needed a job and their mothers/wives/families were used to men serving in the army, not because they were particularly brave or born with a gun in one hand. To this day they talk about how people in cities and people from other states were more aware of other professions and opportunities and in villages in Punjab apparently army was the only job that existed (Pension after retirement was a big plus “saari umar di roti”. On a side note, for today’s youth in punjabi villages, going to US/CAN/UK is the only profession that they know of).
Jai Singh wrote
Not quite sure Jutt sikhs exist today as do Khatri siks, as do mazhabi sikhs….. Also Khatri sikhs and jutt sikhs dominate the ‘martial’ traditions
Bingo! This has been a big reason that people never discuss. This and social inertia which forces people not to look for other oppurtunity and do just what others have been doing.
I totally agree. And has been mentioned before, training has a lot more to do with it than some kind of inate capacity. Also, nearly every community in India has a military history and expertise. Part of the purpose of designating a “martial race” is to drive people apart.
Amen! Especially since so many people had their land confiscated by the British!
You have to be careful not to conflate terms – Jats (Jutt, whatever) are an ethnic tribe or whatnot. Khatri is a caste. They’re not the same thing, but even then, Sikhs are diverse. That doesn’t diminish Jai’s point, which is that the Khalsa was another step towards equalization within the religion. Your “ethnic” identity should not matter in Sikhi, and further, association with a caste is strictly forbidden. Does that mean people do it anyway? Yes, but the principles remain the same.
Camille I dont see your point regarding land in punjab being confiscated by the british…. When did that happen? As far as I know the British did not take land away, and taxation was done quite creatively. Including asking people to raise horses for army in return for the newly cleared forest land.
And No i am not conflating any terms. Plenty of sikhs identify themselves as Jutt/Khatri/ramgarhia/mazhabi(also Jaats are a different tribe A lot different than Jutts). And the martial identification as I have seen in all my years in india and outside india is strongest in Khatri and Jutts.
I am not saying this to attact some one\’s beleif but am stating what I see and giving my reasons which is Khalsa identification is probably strongest in khatri because all of sikh gurus were khatris. you and any one are free to dispute them.
Another reason is that Sikhs do have a saying which is often repeated which is \”wahguru da khalsa wahguru the fateh\” and another one saying \”raj karega khalsa\”
These tend to reinforce the martial pattern of thinking.
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. The rejection of “idol worship” was done by certain societies such as the Arya Samaj. Is the concept of “one god” manifesting Himself/Herself in different forms derived from the British Protestants? I doubt it. There is a temple in Tamil Nadu, India, by the name of Sankaran Kovil, where one half of the idol represents Shiva and the other half Vishnu. There are even Hindu legends propogating the theory that Shiva and Vishnu are diffrent forms of the same Almighty. These two deities represent two important streams of ancient Hinduism, Shaiva and Vaishnava. Everyone is allowed to have the deity of their choice and, in fact, I have never heard of any particular deity’s worship being enforced. I have heard that Hindu scriptures talk about the Supreme Being – “Brahman” and idol worship is not the only way to realise God in Hinduism.
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.
To further add/ agree to comment #.119. Sure, Arya Samaj was influenced by Christian Protestant thought. So were Raja Ram Mohan Roy.
Maybe, in daily life of a Hindu, yes and no.
The lines from Rig veda are:
In a choatic place like Indian subcontinent, their can never “homogenized” thoughts/ views. Only in vestern desis, maybe.
OK, for what it’s worth, my 2 cents on the past 40 odd posts or so…first of all I agree with Camille that Jai Singh is merely trying to correct misconceptions being stated about Sikh history and identity. Yes, he is stating his point of view forcefully and passionately, but he’s not stopping anyone from doing so in equal measure. I agree with him, Sahej, and others that the military history of Sikhs goes back way before the British arrival on the scene. It actually started even well before the Khalsa was formally begun. The only place I would disagree with Jai is in acknowledging the role that the British played in promoting, maintaining, and further reinforcing the Khalsa ideals among their Sikh recruits. Most sources agree that by the time the British came on the scene, there was a ‘re-hinduisation’ of Sikh society taking place…especially during Ranjit Singh’s Raj (another amazing chapter of Indian history that too few know enough about), many Brahminical (and Rajput) influences and practices were creeping back in, Hindu rituals were being performed, pilgrimages to sacred rivers and holy cities, the Golden Temple had Hindu idols in place and was being run by basically Hindu priests, sati was making a comeback in society, caste was once again a defining feature of life, etc, etc. Keshdhari Sikhs were slowly decreasing in number and ‘pure Sikhism’ was declining (although it’s debatable that the majority of Sikhs ever practised ‘pure Sikhi’)…the British reversed this trend (along with many influential Sikh social reformers a few decades later) by enforcing Khalsa rehit, and making it compulsory to be a keshdhari Sikh in order to join military service. The Brits did it for their own reasons, to benefit themselves, but it did have an impact on Sikh society as a whole. This was a direct result of the martial races theory, and it was a cynical manipulation on their part…the British reasoning was that a bunch of Hinduised, clean-shaven Sikhs would be far less useful as fiery soldiers than fully baptised Khalsa Sikhs. So, just as centuries of Muslim rule altered non-Muslim culture and society in India, several generations worth of British policy affected the lives of recruits and their families/society. I think as far as martial races go, there HAD to be something there for the British to work with in the first place (a martial culture, a military temperment or historical background of militarism to some degree – and as someone said, there’s no way you can make an army out of Jains or baniyas) but the Brits took it even further, entrenched it, and used it to divide Indians and control the populace. They were geniuses that way. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there is still some lingering trace of that impact on people’s attitudes (about themselves and others) even today.
I just realised that if I write down everything I want to say, it will take me all night and it’ll end up as a small novel or something…maybe I’ll condense it and break it down over several posts. Or maybe I’ll leave it alone…let’s see how this thread goes.
that wuz a good post anyhow. you should start a blog.
Here is a website on the Sanatan sikhi tradition, what Amitabh calls Hinduised Sikhism above. Good post btw – the colonial impact on brown identity is real, whether Sikh, Muslim, Tamil, Hindu or whatever.
Thanks Razib and Risible.
One other major impact of the British on Sikh society was the land issue, as Camille alluded to. Prior to the British, agriculture in the region depended on rainfall, not irrigation. So only some of central (which is today in Pakistan) and most of eastern Punjab had a lot of agrarian activity, the rest was more or less arid and not densely populated (and had a Muslim majority). The British developed a system of canals (it was actually an amazing engineering feat for those days) and introduced widescale irrigation into vast tracts of formerly unused land (which was very fertile but just needed a water source). Most of that land is now in Pakistan by the way. Anyway, farmers were need to farm this newly available land, and the British only really allowed Jat Sikhs to do so…as a reward for military service, possibly also as a means to divide and rule, and also because Jats had a tradition as excellent farmers. The local Muslims, who did not have a strong agricultural background (most were semi-nomadic), were not used at all for this. So there was a massive migration of Jats from eastern Punjab into these new canal colonies in western and central Punjab. Towns like Lyallpur and Montgomery (the names were later changed by Pakistan and are different today) and their surrounding villages became large centers of Jat Sikh population. The other thing the British did was enact legislation allowing only certain tribes and castes to own land…you had to be an ‘agricultural’ tribe (add that to the list of martial race, criminal tribe, and effeminate race). Khatris/Aroras who were largely traders, and did not directly farm the land they owned, lost a lot of land in that process because they were not designated as ‘agricultural tribes’. Maybe that’s what Camille was referring to. Interestingly, in 1947, when Sikhs had to flee those canal colonies, most headed back to the exact same villages in Indian Punjab that their grandfathers/great-grandfathers had originally left from in order to settle the canal colonies.
CLWAT,
I’m not sure how you are using the spelling “Jutt”. Punjabi Jatt’s usually spell it, Jatt. The term Jutt is not recognizable. Haryanvites often spell it “Jat”. I think Camille’s point is that Jatt/Jats are either Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, or I guess Buddhist. Some became Sikh and are known commonly as Jatt. As much as a caste, Jatt’s are sometimes thought of as an ethnic group.
Also, I think the martial tradition among Sikhs is being made more of a big deal than it is within our community. Of course people like to think their community has it in them to be “bad-ass mofos”. I’m sure every community does that. I think the Sikh community gets considered a tabla rasa and other people tell it what it appears to be.
For example, its quite well known and taken for granted that people joined the Army because that’s where the jobs were. There’s very little mystery about that I’m not sure why its assumed that as a community Sikhs were not aware of the socioeconomic options available to them at the time
The British developed a system of canals (it was actually an amazing engineering feat for those days) and introduced widescale irrigation into vast tracts of formerly unused land (which was very fertile but just needed a water source)
Yes, That is closely linked to the history of Roorkee, Thomasen College, University of Roorkee, IIT (Roorkee), Bengal Sappers, sappers for all the Wars fought by British India, and Independent India, and World Bank and stupid mishandling by Indians on Canal upgrade project.
Can’t you tell Roorkee is my hometown.
One comment here, it was not several generations, at the most two. From roughly 1850 to 1947.
Also, I don’t want to get into a can of worms, but I think its a point I’d like to make clear, there is a diversity of opinion within Sikhism, and some of this diversity was removed by the Singh Sabha. I agree with a lot of what the Singh Sabha did, but I also think a diversity of outlook is not a bad thing.
Also, and here I want to tread carefully, I personally do not like to think of “Hinduised” Sikhism, although this term as its common and I don’t think Amitabh meant anything by it. I hope Amitabh you won’t mind this, I don’t mean to imply anything against your statement. This may be controversial to say, but there are many ways that the Almighty is called in the Guru Granth Sahib, and many of these are in common with Hinduism. Not to say that I don’t believe in Sikhism in its own right, but I also think we are cousins to Hindus and Hinduism is respected in our Guru Granth Sahib
Amitabh,
You are doing an amazing analysis.
However, you are missing one point.
Sikhs in Indian army (pre- and post- Independence) has hovered between 10-20 % of the entire total. In fact, it increased after independence, went down after 1984, and is picking again. Sure, they are the backbone of foot soldiers and even officer class in Indian Army given they only constitute 2% of Indian population. However, now other Indian states are demanding a strict state quota. I guess everyone wants to share the economic pie.
In British Indian Army, Muslims were close to 20% (including Pathans and all), and significant number went to Pakistani Army.
I think in sheer numbers Gurkhas were even more – they around 40 odd regiments near WW 2. Even now, they 7-11 regiments of Gurkha regiments in Indian army.
Traditionally, Indian Air Force has been bastion of Mallu Christians. Also, for Anglo-Indians.
Let’s talk about Ladakh Scouts, an elite recon regiment who are the ear and eyes of Himalayas, and is mostly Buddhists from Leh and Tibet.
The one point you are missing: Different parts of Indian entire armed forces (all parts) are dominated by different castes/ regions. It is changing now, a little bit.
Haryanvi Jaat are not the same ethnic group as punjabi Jutt/Jatt. A Harvani Jaat is more easily distinguisahble . Their ancestors (mostly males) were central asian nomads who settled in India. They show more asian features in high numbers as in smaller eyes, high cheekbones, slim build, less hairy. There rarely is a Jaat sikh, Just like there rarely is a Jutt Hindu. Most Jutts are either Sikh/Muslim.
PS there is a really fun pakistani movie called Maula Jutt. It is fun to watch b/c it is really bad with no plot, But has a rustic punjabi
CLWAT,
never heard the term Jaat or Jutt. Also I’ve always heard it understood that Haryanvi Jats are similiar to Punjabi Jatts
Could you please elaborate Amardeep why you are so
?
Classical Liberal Warrior against whatever has absolutely no idea of the number of jutt/jatt/jaat sub-castes overlapping in Punjab and Haryana. To name a few – the Bajya, Chahals, Chhillars, Deswal, Garewals, Maans, Tarars. He also does not seem to have any idea of the Hindu Jakhar (Balram Jakhar – ex Minister and speaker Lok Sabha) and Deol jaats (Dharmendra, Sunny and Bobby), Cheemas, Joons from Punjab.
CLWAT:
Please see the very articulate explanation by Amitabh (#124) – his point is exactly what I was referring to 🙂
With respect to people identifying as one thing or another, it’s totally possible. My point was that, according to the tenets of the religion, those are not supposed to be identities that people embrace. Furthremore, I highly doubt that most Khalsa are Khatris. If you can give me figures on the number of Sikhs who identify primarily as Khalsa Khatris maybe we can talk, but I have a feeling you won’t be able to largely because Sikhi wholly rejects the caste system. Do some people still cling to it? Sure. However, as was stated, such an identification would stand in direct opposition to the principles of the religion. I’m just pointing that out; I know that reality and theory do not often meet.
As far as the Jatt/Jat/Jutt explanation, I honestly think there is a confusion in terms. I have a feeling these are all the same people, just different pronunciations. I echo what Sahej said, and also, I don’t understand the below, could you clarify?
And finally…
No offense, but not only is that an incorrect quote, but these do not reinforce “martial thinking.” For clarity, let’s say “Khalsa” comes from the word “Khalis” meaning Truth/Pure, and consider these quotes with that meaning included. Let’s reexamine common Sikh greetings, yes?
This translates to: “The Khalsa belong to Vaheguru [God]! / Victory belongs to Vaheguru!”. Note that this is NOT “Victory belongs to the Khalsa.” There is a distinction, and it is a significant one. The second greeting is, “Sat Sri Akal,” from the phrase “(Jo) Bole So Nihal / Sat Sri Akal!” [Whoever speaks will be satisfied/happy/complete / The Almighty is Truth!] The last saying (not really a greeting), “Raj karega Khalsa” translates to “The Khalsa will inherit the earth.” This is not meant to mean the “Sikh Khalsa” specifically or to the exclusion of others, this means Khalsa in the broader sense, much like the quote from the Bible, “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Basically anyone with a good heart who lives honestly and has their head on their shoulders. And finally, in case you were thinking of mentioning the shabad often referred to as the “Sikh anthem” [“Deh Shiva bar moh ehai…”], please note that this kirtan is about the human “battle” with forces that draw you away from Vaheguru, including anger, lust, greed, ego, and attachment. None of these are “martial” quotes, they are all about reflection on God and adopting the classic Sikh philosophy, “Check yourself before you wreck yourself.”
Kush
Perhaps this is also due to the gross unemployment and falling agriculture production in the state?
Sahej
Sahej, I would tread lightly here, also. In my opinion, the use of other terms for Vaheguru (including “Allah”), is to establish that whatever you call your Higher Power, it is the same entity. I think it’s also to help give people a phrase/context to understand the idea of God, and the major contexts at the time were Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. I do agree with your statement, though, that there is a lot of respect for other religions, in general, within the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
Also (to echo Sahej) I think it’s important to distinguish between the consensus that the Sikh community has reached on how to practice its faith through the Singh Sabha versus how different groups split off and modify their practice. While those “splintered” groups may self-identify as Sikh, the religion is pretty clear about its definitions and inclusions.
But the whole underlying purpose of my initial post was to say, don’t hate on Jai, and there is nothing inately special about Sikh martial capability… there is just a specific to be trained in the martial arts that predates the British. I bet if you looked at Khalsa in the diaspora most would not be upholding the “soldier” element of their training, but perhaps this is because the concept of a “saint-soldier” is dynamic.
For more: Politics of ‘hereditary’ crime
Something akin to the highlighted portion above was happening in the case of ‘martial races’, although why race rather than caste was used may have been due to the ascendence of eugenics in the 1880s. These are real policies during British colonial times that still have consequences today.
Another link: Criminality and Colonial Anthropology
Amitabh may want to write a book called ‘Martial Sikhs and Colonial Anthropology’.
Talking of British Indian Army.
I finally found some hard numbers for British Indian Army[ I hope they are correct since internet is free for all]. There is a surprising demographics, a lot of which I suspected (read over the years), and they are surprises. Between 1940-47, Muslims were 37-36%, Hindus 37-41 %, Sikhs 12-9 %, Christians 1-4 %, Gurkhas 10-8 %. Notice British Indian army swelled 5X around 1945. The one thing to notice that Gurkhas is a small subset of Nepalis, and as a whole a very small group.
Hindus have always been the majority, as Gurkhas are Hindus too.
I need some hard numbers for independent Indian army. I guess the first order change is Muslims in Indian Army went to low single digits (they went to Pakistani Army), and subsequently other’s share increased overnight.
Another vestige of the criminal caste legacy.
From: Lazy, Shiftless, Thieving: But People
“Jatt” and “Jaat” are the same word, the former in Punjabi, the latter in Hindi. Just like agg/aag (fire), hatth/haath (hand), kann/kaan (ear), kamm/kaam (work), nakk/naak (nose), akkh/aankh (eye), dand/daant (tooth), ajj/aaj (today), nach/naach (dance) etc. Whether the Punjabi Jatts and the Haryanvi Jaats are the same or not, I don’t know. Razib?
Correction: Between 1940-47, Muslims were 37-36%, Hindus 37-41 %, Sikhs 12-9 %, Christians 1-10 %, Gurkhas 10-8 %. Notice British Indian army swelled 6X around 1945.
Something to notice, that they were more Gurkhas (~104,000), and Christians and others (~142,000) than Sikhs (~94,000) in 1945 British Indian Army.
What was going on? Height of Indian independence movement, therefore more Gurkhas. But why more Christians and others?
Does anyone know? Who are others?
Whether the Punjabi Jatts and the Haryanvi Jaats are the same or not, I don’t know. Razib?
if you are asking if genetics can answer this question, not at this time. most regional groups of south asians are genetically close (e.g., muslims in a given region of india are pretty much genetic reflections of the hindu population and vice versa). you could test if the two groups have intersecting matrilineages and patrilineages though pretty easily, and that might bear upon their ethnological origin (even if groups mix a lot if their ethnic identity is distinct their patriline will remain distinct).
not unless you are using Laat/Lutt Paad/Pudd analogy. But if you keep your eyes open as well as mind one can clearly see a racially(and I tread very carefully never having bought into Caucasian/mongoloid/negroid basis of race composition) But visually it is obvious that Haryanvi Jaats and to some extent Later Rajputs have central Asian \”mongoloid\” physical features. What I said about physical variations is visible. Especially if you look into the relative frequency of many practices, some which were a near polyandry like situation. There is no reason for such legends to survive… Unless you think every legend was baseless, to which I would ask Did a Bedi knowing all that he knew of physical as well as psychological interpretation changed the story of Kaba being turned to the direction of his feet….. The answer is simple a legend/ancestoral practice is recorded to what the latter generation wanted to remember…. If the latter generation feels better that more than 1 man should share a wife they would make up a story that it didnt happen in their village but was ok in the next village….These legends/religious stories and all have to be taken considering the \”REAL\” world. Why did Mohammed come up with 4 witnesses ? Hint Hint Age diff between Ayesha and him
Same applies if you cant see that a haryanvi Jaaaaat is different than a Jutt well enjoy your delusions, as far as my reading goes I percieve a subtle difference, But I can accept them all as a part of human race(where plenty of adherents believe that they have something non verifiable about their faiths/ racial /martial/ origins. PS I did suggest that the cultural framework matters
Give me an example of land being taken away in PUNJAB by the BRITISH?
Not quite! for a foot soldier when he is called upon a battle rarely knows what that individual battle is about. Their may be some understanding of what the grand scheme is about, but that too rarely. OW how do you justify the sikh soldiers killing hindu and moslem in a war that some interpret as the 1st war of independence for India.
This is why as you say \”reality is differnt from theory\” then I could really care less, My reality is formed by asking simple/dumb/childish questions to the practitioners asking why are they doing what they are doing? And asking the same questions while i read text weather being religious/legendary/historical. And most people end up giving an irrational explanation and later justify everything in terms of some religious framework, which has to be understood as all or whole.
I meant as all or nothing here Sorry!
13 risible
Here is a writeup on the suppresiion of Tamil Martial castes Kallars, Maravars and Ahampadiyar.
For more: The suppression of Tamil military castes
Classical Liberal Warrior Against Terror ,
1) WTF are you talking about?
2) what OS & browser are you using that it is introducing backslashes in the via the input boxes?
13 risible,
R.Chamapakalakshmi writes in a literary review on Dirks book from ‘The Hindu’.
Ikram,
re: post #100
Interesting that you’ve decided to show your face yet again on a thread where there is an opportunity for you to start hurling your insults at Sikhs. There’s quite a track record of you doing so here on Sepia Mutiny.
I have little to say in response to your comments, except for the fact that you’ve revealed quite a lot about your own personality by virtue of your own words. Despite the fact that I’d noticed your blatant tendency to jump on the cyber-lynching bandwagon on previous occasions — and for some reason you seem to have singled me out repeatedly, despite the fact that I have little history of any direct online dialogue with you — a little while ago on another discussion I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and made a conscious effort to be as friendly to you as possible in response to what appeared to be sincere questions about the history of Sikhs in the British Indian military during the colonial period after the second Anglo-Sikh War. Kush T was also an active participant in that amicable discussion, as you may recall.
However, I now see that my own well-meaning efforts were pointless, given your own obnoxious and uncalled-for bukwaas in your post address to me. You are probably unaware that Razib and I are actually friends offline and are on extremely good terms with each other; so your own little attempt at “divide and rule” was a wasted effort on your part and more than a little misguided.
Your diatribe is filled with childish insults and attempts to bait me, so I’m just going to ignore it — and you, in future — since you’ve revealed yourself to clearly be an immature, obnoxious jerk.
Now, go to hell. There’s the door — off you go.
Btw – a better book on the Gurkhas is ‘Warrior Gentleman: Gurkhas in the Western Imagination’ by Lionel Caplan.
Amitabh & Camille,
Your posts on this thread have been absolutely brilliant (Amitabh, man, I was wondering when you were going to step in 😉 ), and they explain a huge amount about Sikh history and religious philosophy which basically extrapolates the various points I was trying to make too. I actually feel guilty that I don’t know how to express my gratitude and admiration to you more beyond these brief sentences, considering the extensively detailed, thoughtful and informative posts you’ve been submitting here; you’ve made such a tremendous contribution to this discussion. My sincere thanks also to both of you for defending me in my absence — and you’re right, I was just trying to clarify matters for the benefit of those who may have been misinformed. There was no ego-driven “grandstanding” on my part — and when it comes to Sikhism, there never is. I can hardly take credit for Guru Gobind Singh’s character and actions, for example.
It goes beyond that. Along with the explanation Camille has kindly given, it’s worth remembering that during the Mughal era, the term “Khalsa” was actually used to denote territory personally owned by the Emperor. So in the Sikh sense, it also means human beings belonging to the “true Emperor”, ie. God. And although generally it’s used to describe Sikhs — especially Amritdhari Sikhs — in the true sense it refers to benevolent people in general, irrespective of their formal religious affiliation (if any).
These words are part of a much longer verse by Guru Gobind Singh, the full translation is “The Khalsa will rule, and no opposition will remain. Those who had veered away from the true path will return to God’s shelter”.
It’s basically a prophecy that, eventually, during some stage in the future of human history, genuinely benevolent and spiritually-enlightened people everywhere will “inherit the earth” (to use Camille’s words). “Raj Karega Khalsa” is just an extract from the first part of this, and should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from the rest of the verse.
Along with the explanation I gave previously — and to reiterate something I’ve said numerous times on Sepia Mutiny during the past year — the “soldier” aspect is twofold: Firstly, there are the obvious military reasons; the world has always been a highly dangerous place, and it’s necessary to have skills in fighting to defend yourself if the need arises and, especially, to defend other innocent victims who may be physically attacked by someone. This applies to our ordinary everyday lives but, ideally, also on a wider scale with regards to larger global conflicts. In the case of the latter, not all historical or modern-day military/police authorities are necessarily benevolent — depending on which part of the world we’re talking about, and which point in time we’re referring to — so the ability to fight individually and in an organised sense is necessary in order to prevent innocent parties being exploited and persecuted. Generally, those of us living in peaceful Western countries have certain luxuries, but it hasn’t always been that way, there are plenty of other regions of the world where it’s definitely not so “safe”, and who knows what will happen in the future too.
Secondly, the rationale is very similar to that behind many modern-day martial arts. Apart from the obvious physical aspects, it’s to inculcate some mental/emotional self-discipline in the person concerned and, especially, to help them gain some “backbone” and general courage in terms of their personalities. The “warrior” aspect in the Sikh sense therefore also applies to one’s basic mindset and approach to life; it doesn’t mean one is supposed to be a belligerent, aggressive, argumentative thug, but it is intended to inculcate a more assertive and dynamic approach to life, along with encouraging the person to face adversities unflinchingly and have the guts to handle the various hurdles life often throws at us. And, of course, to defend ourselves and others against unwarranted attacks (psychological/verbal, in this case) and generally stand up against injustices. You don’t need to be trained in martial arts to achieve the latter — although it helps, and again it’s encouraged within Sikhism — but this is why the warrior aspect in Sikhism refers to one’s own personality and attitudes, not just the obvious physical prowess in fighting.
(Camille — Yes I’m aware you know all this already, it’s just for the benefit of other commenters here who may not be fully informed on the above 🙂 )
Regarding the whole Jatt/Jutt controversy: They’re just different pronunciations for the name of the same caste. Different accents — as in “pindoo” vs “pendoo”.
Razib,
No hard feelings at all, man; I’d just thought you were being a little more aloof and blunt than your usual friendly and humorous self, so I’d been wondering if I’d done something wrong. I was just kidding about the “heteronormativity” dig a couple of weeks ago when I mentioned my objections to “exotification” etc, by the way — I’d been wondering if you were going to pick that up and run with it, but at the time you didn’t respond to the bait 😉
No, I’m pretty fair-minded about these things as you hopefully recall from previous discussions, and I’ve never hesitated to be ruthlessly honest about any negative actions or attitudes amongst modern/historical Sikhs or Indians in general. I was just quoting from British historical records on the matter.
The Sikhs lost the First Anglo-Sikh War in particular due to internal betrayals by a couple of their generals, rather than due to any lack of fighting prowess. There is plenty of information around on the ‘net, but if you have some spare time you may find the following description of that conflict particularly interesting reading. Link here. It’s quite long, but extremely detailed if you feel like learning more about those events.
I’ve said this before but it’s worth reiterating that Sikhism isn’t an “exclusivist” faith either in the religion’s tenets or in the qualities it’s supposed to confer on its committed adherents; being a Sikh alone won’t make someone a better fighter or a better military strategist (notwithstanding the tendency of Sikhs like Jatts in particular to be on average more naturally athletic and heavier-built than normal, like many other Indian and global groups who have historically been heavily involved in nanual work and/or warfare)…..It’s the spiritual and psychological qualities which may be conferred on the people who practice the basics properly and sincerely (again, not confined to Sikhs) which will apparently make them very good at all this. So plenty of other people/groups from other backgrounds have been very good at warfare too, if there is an overlap between them and Sikhs in these “core” matters.
Issues like religious teachings obviously reach a point where academic analysis and speculation are insufficient and, in some aspects, one has to “take a leap of faith” with regards to the more mystical areas, so obviously you and I are going to disagree there from time to time (as we have done, occasionally), due to the lack of common perspective and personal experiences in the matter. But I try to be as rigorously honest and thorough as possible where “provable”, recorded historical events are concerned.
Thank you for this too 😉