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.
AlMfD,
I’m afraid you’re wrong about me on this particular occasion, as I’ve explained to Razib above. I don’t believe in taking a jingoistic stance about anything, and whatever positive stances I have made regarding Sikhs and Sikhism now or historically are based purely on genuine, merit-derived analyses on the matter, with an attempt on my part to be as honest and objective as possible. Also, you’re making some assumptions with regards to my own ancestry; my family’s history is a very long and complicated story as I’ve occasionally mentioned previously on SM (in some aspects it’s actually much more closely linked to the Rajputs), but bear in mind that not all modern-day Muslims are necessarily descended from people who fought alongside Mohammad (to draw an analogy).
Jai,
I dont think you are a Sikh jingoist. Maybe you are just a proud Sikh?
Maybe I have become reflexively anti-religious and hence my tendency to assume partisan analysis whenever something positive is said about religion. I do remember bickering with you or maybe it was Ennis about turbans in another thread a few months back. I might be lapsing into Sam Harris territory which I should of course avoid!
Camille, I asked my Sikh friend, who is doing postgraduate work in Punjabi at the London University (SOAS), I asked her what Sat-Sri-Akal means and she said it meant ‘The Truth is Eternal’ — where ‘Eternal / Eternity’ corresponds to one of many Sikh names for God.
Interesting discussion by the way everyone.
Camille
Sat = Truth
Akal = Eternal / Eternity / God
So Truth and God are one and the same, and there is a metaphysical aspect to it too, where God / Truth is conceived of as all that is timeless and cosmic. So it’s not only a greeting, it contains some philosophical / theological conception of the Universe. That’s how my friend explained it to me.
Amitabh, Jai and Camille Thanks for great comments explaining sikh philosophy and history. My wife got asked by her co-worker which God does Sikhs pray to? She admits to be not very articulate on these matters but after reading some of the comments here she felt better prepared to answer that question and more. This brings me to the other point may be off topic, but I think there is a lack of less jingoistic more secular and sensible look at sikh history. I am not religious but a sikh nevertheless, I would like my children to have a more independent/objective perspective on sikhism and religion in general and I also wish them to be culturally aware of sikhism and be proud of its traditions. Any recommendations or you guys plan to write something 🙂 or does my point makes sense at all? This might be true for people of other religions as well.
It is interesting to note that the ‘martial races’ settled in urban areas prefer to send their sons abroad and those in the villages may have no choice but to encourage their sons to enlist. Is it any surprise that the Indian Army is short of 12000 officers today but there are stampedes when soldiers are recruited.
Another interesting aspect of the martial race theory is how the British had also created ‘Dalit’ regiments. The Mahar Regiment, for instance, was formed by recruiting men of the Mahar community of Marathwada. Dr B.R.Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution, was the son of a Subedar Major of a Mahar Infantry Battalion. It is possible that his exposure to the army at a young age may have given him his vision. Similarly upper caste Sikhs are recruited into the Sikh regiment. Upper caste Sikhs and Punjabi Hindus dominate the Punjab Regiment and lower caste Dalit Sikhs are recruited into the Sikh Light Infantry. Before Independence there also existed a Chamar Regiment which was disbanded. Politicians like Ram Vilas Paswan have been asking for the government to set up a Dalit Regiment. But the Government is said to have taken a policy decision that no more Regiments associated with caste or community will be created.
Here is a writeup on the suppresiion of Tamil Martial castes Kallars, Maravars and Ahampadiyar.
Thanks, criminal caste. My point was simply that while “martial memory” may have been a precondition for designation as a martial race, not all communities with such a memory were deemed (the less than complimentary, back-handed in fact) martial ‘races’.
Sahej:
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.
There are still Sikh communities and individual Sikhs that don’t necessarily ascribe to Tat Khalsa “normativity’, viz. a standardized Sikh identity
Harjot Singh Oberoi listed four primary reasons why Tat Khalsa/Singh Sabha normativity prevailed over what he calls Sikh pluralism or the more ambiguous (and for a long time dominant) strands of Sikhism called the Sanatani traditions, where people worshipped icons and idols, visited the tombs of pirs and sants, had several philosphical and metaphysical postions, asceticism, yoga and what have you:
1) The pre-existing efforts of Khalsa Sikhs to create a separate identity. (Which was not necessarily succesful, given the scores of Sikhs sects.)
2) The efforts of the British (which I discussed above, and really most relevant to this post) which explicitly preferenced Khalsa Sikhism over all other forms. Oberoi himself states that Khalsa Sikhism was a “greatly boosted in fortune” by the British Army’s reformation of the Sikh faith, especially by mandating “babtism” for all recruits, and deeming all other practices “deviant.”
3) The Sikh elites interactions with European Enlightenment texts – and the dissonance it spurred in them to create a “new grammar” for society, in line with their own position as members of the adminstartive apparatus of the Raj.
4) The fact that everyone else was engaged in a similar “construction of boundaries”, viz. the Hindus through the Arya Samaj, and various ‘purifying’ Muslim movements.
AlMfD,
No you weren’t arguing with me. I think you made some comments about the lack of necessity for outward religious symbols on a thread Ennis had initiated, and I jumped in to explain the origin of the 5 K’s and the specific historical events which led up to Guru Gobind Singh implementing them. I don’t recall any “bickering” with me, in fact you were extremely polite.
Red Snapper,
Almost. It’s the other way around — “Truth” is one of the names for God, eg. the first words of the Guru Granth Sahib are “Ik Onkar, Sat Naam”: “There is only one God, His name is Truth”.
So, “Sat Sri Akaal” means that (real) Truth is eternal, and so is God, as He is defined in Sikhism as being immortal.
If I may modify your following explanation slightly:
….becomes Sat = Truth / God Akal = Eternal / Timeless / Immortal.
Exactly. Absolutely spot-on.
For those who don’t know, I believe Guru Gobind Singh was the first Sikh Guru to use the phrase — during his address to the thousands who had gathered at Anandpur Sahib, during the formation of the Khalsa at Vaisakhi 1699.
Jai, thanks for your nice words my friend, as always, I strongly appreciate them. Kush, thank you also for your nice words.
Classical Liberal Warrior’s statements are not worth responding to.
Risible, I agree with what you are saying in #157…but just wanted to point out that much of the ‘Sanatani’ stuff you mention, as well as the ‘plurality’ – “worshipped icons and idols, visited the tombs of pirs and sants, had several philosphical and metaphysical postions, asceticism, yoga and what have you” was forbidden by the Sikh gurus anyway…so if people persisted in doing that (which they did and continue to do), technically they weren’t following the Gurus very strictly anyway. So way before the Singh Sabha tried to enforce anything, the Gurus had aleady tried to make those changes in society. Of course, the extreme anti-Hindu stance taken by some reformist Sikhs in the late 19th/early 20th century was more of a reaction (a backlash) to very obnoxious statements and propoganda being spread by the Arya Samaj in particular, which was trying to finish off the Sikh religion (and destroy the Punjabi language). As for Sanatani Sikhism, if it was merely Sikhs promoting it, it would be one thing, but when you look below the surface, you find there the efforts of various Hindu groups to undermine and absorb the Sikh religion. The most notorious example of this is the RSS – Rashtriya Sikh Sangat or something like that…formed by no less than the Hindu RSS in an effort to co-opt Sikhs. Furthermore, as Jai has pointed out many times, Indian TV shows, soap operas, etc. consistently portray Sikhs as being eccentric Punjabi, turbanned Hindus. Bollywood is even worse, making Sikhs appear as clowns and idiots. So there are subtle and not so subtle forces at work even right now in 2006 to undermine and erode the identity of the Sikhs. That being said, yes there have been many positive portrayals lately too, and I was impressed to see that Sikh kids (notably boys in patkas) are used often in advertising, so that’s a good thing (it’s not good to always see only the negative side to things).
HM,
Well, there are lots of sources of information around. For starters I could recommend the following:
“The Sikhs” by Patwant Singh, available on Amazon. I’ve only flicked through it myself but it’s supposed to be quite good, albeit slightly partisan.
Online sources:
All About Sikhs/Gateway to Sikhism (absolutely packed with information — use the links on the menu bar on the left side. It has extremely detailed accounts of Sikh history along with biographies of the Sikh Gurus) Sikhs.org Sikhnet (Also has a very good discussion forum which anyone can participate on after a quick free registration.)
Camille,
Quick addendum to my previous post addressed to you (and Amitabh):
To the best of my knowledge, “Nihal” actually means “Blessed”. So I guess the phrase literally means “Blessed is he/she, who says that Truth/God is Eternal”.
As for Sanatani Sikhism, if it was merely Sikhs promoting it, it would be one thing, but when you look below the surface, you find there the efforts of various Hindu groups to undermine and absorb the Sikh religion.
Interesting. But would you say that the sanatani reaction was fuelled primarily by Hindus, or would you say that the sanatani Sikhs genuinely believed in their pluaralist vision? There were literally scores of ‘sects’? Oberoi contends that much of the resistance to Tat Khalsa normativity came from Sikh peasants, who happily went on worshipping pirs and what have you – and, according to him, still do – long after the Singh Sabha established itself.
Yes, I agree the Arya Samaj was anti-Sikh and converted many Sikhs, and this is part of reason # 4 given above.
Razib,
[A]Asking Camille where’s the source of her assertion that “British took Land away in Punjab” wrt Sikhs She did imply that amitabh answered to that, and to me it doesn’t seem that, he gives another reason where it appears that Sikhs benefited under the british
[B] Trying to say that theory is different than practice response seems incomplete. Sikhism seems a strongly martial influenced faith, especially amongst the khatris and jutts I am trying to ask why and all responses to that are where folks are saying there is no difference amongst sikh groups period. So I ask them to entertain my Silly questions, and do tell me why there is a different pattern.
[C]Correcting a common misconception regarding Jaat and Jutt being same group…. To which it seems like I am getting a response that there is no difference in the ethnic make up in terms of racial origin, but its a religious thing(again i tread carefuly here, b/c I dont buy the 3 primary race theory to which many people buy args)
firefox running via tunneling, I’ll ask the admin for help.
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.
Yes, Jai. However, you are missing the big picture. Right from Battle of Plassey, internal betrayals played a key role in winning battles by colonials in India. Almost all of them. In fact, Battle of Plassey (1757) is used as a case of downright betrayals.
Let even look even a bigger picture. Mohammed Ghazni won through betrayals.
Hell, the whole North America was conquered by Europeans by internal betrayals and infighting by Native Americans and small pox.
That is how smaller groups wins battles and wars. Hell, in 2001-2002, US won Afghanistan by paying off chieftians of Northern Alliance.
Betrayals is a norm in imperialism and foreign campaigns rather an exception that only applied Anglo-Sikh wars.
Good Call!
I think the greatest strength of the Sikhs spring from the fact that they have never ever won a single war, as Sikhs, in their entire history. They may have won a few for others but never ever one for themselves. This, their never-say-die spirit, has something to do with this somewhat open-ended irony.
This somewhat curious statement is contradicted by the fact that the Khalsa under Guru Gobind Singh won 12 battles out of the total of 14 that they fought during his lifetime. Aurangzeb did capitulate on his death-bed due to the Guru’s military and, simultaneously, ongoing diplomatic efforts to make him amend his fanaticism, and matters improved to the point where the Guru was actually on his way to meet the Emperor when the latter passed away. So you could say that the Sikhs won that particular war.
Also, Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s war of conquest over large swathes of the northwest of the subcontinent right up to the border with Afghanistan, resulting in the establishment of his empire, could also be viewed as a victory (albeit one which violates Sikh principles for permissible warfare).
Just two examples.
You break my heart absolutely. If, indeed, your facts are verifiably correct – and I mercifully know they are not – my faith in Sikh creativity takes a nosedive. But rest assured it will not for my sense of history is marginally better than yours. Baki – ‘dil ke behlane ko Pannu yeh khayaal kachcha hai”!
How convenient – our entire history is the history of ‘betrayals’. It is a bit like – “Oh aadmi te chaNga si janaani ne vigaR ta”! These imagined betrayals began much before Mehmud of Ghazni invaded the land of milk and honey like a furthive thief. Waah! Aisi history to bas RSS ke Nagpur head office meN hi likhi jaa sakti hai.
I think all this discussion on how many victories did Sikhs achieve would be moot if there was a tradition of resident historians/chroniclers during those times. The statement that India as a whole lacked sense of history seems true to me, how do other more learned commenters feel about this? There seems to be so much ambiguity in Indian history.
Thanks for the Links and suggestions Jai brother. I just borrowed Cunnigham’s and Mcleod’s Sikh history books from the library also Sohan Singh Seetal’s “The Sikh Misls”.
Amitabh
Well thanks, I guess If you are interested in Blowing your own horn so it wouldnt be. But i gave counter examples from history to show that sikhs are no saint-soldiers. Just another ethnic group. And one of the more successful ethnic group in indian subcontinent that had allied with the british.
If making a fantasy delusion about something keeps you happy, enjoy and live in your bubbble. But look around and for the most part the whole world except in a couple of places looks at events more criticaly and questions everything.
Hello!!
The question was about the merit of branding a ‘race’ as martial. The subsequent questions should have been.
a. What is an intra-indian race? As in, are marathas a race? Are Sikhs a race? Are Gurkhas a race? Does race matter today? My answer: no such concept. However, some tightly knit communities responded to circumstances by developing specific cultural attributes that were reinforced over time. the uniqueness of these attributes led them to be defined as a ‘race’ in the context of the point below.
b. What is ‘martial’? Is it characterized as valor in battle or is it characterized by a high % of a community participating in war? Does peacekeeping count as a martial trait? Are the engineering corps warriors? My answer: firstly i dont see war as a noble endeavor unless it is fought with a view to preserving one’s community. good warriors are characterized by commitment to one’s goal. i read war in the sense that muslims read ‘jihad’. your definitions may vary – but i will not agree with you that a community with a high foot soldier contribution is particularly noble. it is more indicative of a singular lack of ambition or alternate channels to pursue one’s destiny.
c. Why did the english encourage the notion of ‘martial races’? Why was it convenient for them to encourage ‘martial’ traits in some communities and discourage them in another? If and how did it facilitate governance of the indians through the indians? My answer: it made for easy governance. give a little bit of power to the malleable few and take the power away from the loosely grouped masses.
Go for the bone.
ok… got a call.
First and foremost, thanks to Amitabh, Sahej and Jai. This is a complicated topic, and there is not a lot of non-partisan/formal scholarship on the matter, so I think we’re all trying to do the best we can. Lots of thanks, also, to everyone else who has been keeping it civil and cool, esp. risible, razib, KT, etc. Also, please forgive any of my errors in translation – these are wholly my own. Part of my difficulty is trying to find English words for concepts that may not have the same context/meaning as they do in Punjabi/baani, but thanks to all for your patience.
Red
Yes. 🙂 I apologize that my translations are sometimes clumsy; I was trying to address the “martial greetings” post, but clearly Sikhi has a much more abstract conception of the universe and God than some other traditions. For more information on Sikh names for God, there is always Jaap Sahib from Nitnem, which is a brief preview of the many different names/characteristics of God. It’s also written in Sanskrit (sometimes transliterated in Punjabi script), for those who are so inclined 🙂
#156 HM:
Yes, and I totally empathize. Many of the primary source documents and previous pieces of Sikh history have also been burned over time, both during British occupation, but also post-Independence. This makes “proving it” harder to do because a lot of Sikh history is carried through oral traditions, which are typically devalued and delegitimized in the academy. I think Jai’s recommendations are about as good as you can get (unfortunately) at the moment. I would read with a big grain of salt since these are not so great. I think the worst and most inaccurate Sikh history texts are by McLeoud and Khushwant Singh. [I am totally expecting backlash on this one, but perhaps we can talk offline about this if folks are so inclined] Oh, and on a totally unrelated note, there are several Sikh groups in the U.S. who are trying to work towards establishing better, more methodical ways of writing and collecting information on Sikh philosophy and history, so perhaps something will come about in the next few years? At the moment, some of the best Sikh history projects I have seen/heard have been oral histories (both recorded and video-taped), particularly of those who lived through Partition.
#157 risible:
And they are not acknowledged in the faith community. I know that sounds crazy, but as Jai said, there was already a basic level of what does and does not define Sikhi and its adherents prior to the decisions made by the Singh Sabha [an aside for clarification: (apologies in advance for the rude and very brief description) the Singh Sabha is a meeting of Sikhs chosen to represent all the different Sikh congregations in order to make decisions on behalf of the whole – it is kind of like a representative democracy, and decisions are based on democratic consensus. This is how decisions are made since the passing of the last “human” Guru, Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It is the “panth” part of “Granth and panth”]. Also, from what I understand, every Sikh group (including ‘sects’) were invited to the deliberations. The 3 very basic requirements for Sikhs, as delineated in the Rehit Maryada are: 1. Belief and acceptance of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as the Living Guru (and submission to Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji – the whole impetus behind why Sikhs mutha-tek in the presence of the Guruji). 2. Belief in the teachings of the Sikh Gurus. 3. Adherence to the tenets of Sikh life as outlined in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and the Rehit Maryada. Tacit in all of these requirements is the idea of “compliance with” each of these. Idolatry/icons and most rituals have always been forbidden, as is made clear in many of the teachings of the first Sikh Guru, Sri Guru Nanak Ji.
Jai:
You’re probably right; I was having a hard time coming up with a translation since there is an element of anand and khushi in nihal, but blessed sounds pretty accurate 🙂
#162 risible:
I don’t know if sanatani is fueled by Hindus, but I am pretty sure it is not advanced by a pluralist vision of Sikhi. I would argue that this is a move by folks who do not want to make a full transition to Sikhi and its teachings and are instead trying to find a “midway” between their Hindu beliefs and Sikh beliefs by creating some kind of fusion in the middle. While there are definitely philosophical overlaps (as is true of ALL world religions, in my opinion), I don’t think this can be confused as appropriate from a Sikh perspective. Again, the primary requirement of being a Sikh is belief in the teachings in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji; idolatry, iconism, human worship, offerings, human-worshipping, etc., are all strictly forbidden in the religion’s Scripture.
#163 CLWAT
Look, I don’t know if this happened through taxation or by other means (in addition to what Amitabh mentioned), but I can tell you that all my great-grandfathers had their lands confiscated by the British post-occupation and that they only way they were allowed to gain some land back was through military service. Part of this was because previously fertile land was not so fertile after the British irrigated other parts of Punjab through their big time canal projects. Maybe I have a twisted perspective since they were all educated and had been heavily involved in the pre-British Punjab government and were all staunchly anti-occupation – perhaps the confiscation of their lands was specifically political.
What I take issue with is the conflation of Sikhs as an ethnic or racial group, which they are not (and in my opinion, Punjabis are also not a racial group). Just as all Muslims are not Arab, all Sikhs are not Punjabi or Jatt, and they certainly are not all Khatri. My point was that these demarcations are not useful in describing Sikhs because Sikhs themselves do not identify this way, and because we are all so intermixed and intermarried at this point that those categories no longer hold traction. Also, could you point out where you gave examples that Sikhs are not “saint-soldiers”?
#164 KT:
Very true, and further evidence that the British were all about getting people to stab one another in the back. That said, they wouldn’t have been successful if people hadn’t betrayed one another. We know betrayal happened, and we know people were not so great. This happened all over the subcontinent, and the British used this same system of setting people against one another to keep communities divided, in part to derail any attempts at building an Independence movement… and we all know how that worked out.
#168 PP:
Is there a reason for your snarky attitude? What kind of “facts” are you trying to dispute, how would you “mercifully know they are not [true”, etc.? Or are you just trying to be purposefully rude while subscribing to the Stephen Colbert method of fact-creation?
#170 HM
I would say yes and no. From what my grandfather remembers of British occupation, this “loss of history” was also an intentional aspect of occupation. Does anyone have a more concrete/empirical explanation than mine? (I know mine is purely anecdotal)
Two things I wanted to mention:
I read that Byron Farwell book recently as well. After the British first attacked, one Gurka (paraphrasing the book) said to the Brits: ‘you are very near our equal.’ Priceless!
Also, I appreciate you questioning the Martial Race theory. As a Bengali, I’m obligated to mention that Netaji was a respected soldier and lead the INA.
Oh my goodness, I wrote a novel. Wow. At any rate…
hairy_d
Really? Do you think it was that easy? I think they pulled a Lauryn Hill and played their enemies like a game of chess. It would be interesting to think about things the British did to reinforce or normalize these classifications and divisions. For example, calling the Bengalis effeminate and then starving them to death.
The feeling was mutual. The Brits respected the Gurkhas more than any native indian. While the (non-gurkha) hindus, muslims, and sikhs of India were classed as “sepoys” and not allowed into British canteens, the mongoloid Nepalese Gurkhas were classed as “riflemen” and allowed to eat in those exclusive canteens.
More Victoria Crosses were awarded to Gurkhas than anyone else in the British Indian Army.
Doordarshan,
insulted, offended even! educate yourself! gurkhas have bigger penises than brown guys! insulted, offended even! educate yourself!
(troll warning 🙂
l. Where were your great grandfathers from…. what region
Did I say sikhs are a racial group…They are an ethnic group however. and what i had originaly said that the martial idea was strongest amongst Jutts and Khatris (as per my observation of sikhs in india/UK/canada/US/malaysia) I dont see a strong martial idea/culture in other sikh groups. And I do see sikhs describing themselves thatway….Just hear a conversation at any gathering you will come accross something like asi jaat sikh hain, tusi kaon…Or look at the matrimonial sites…. And it can not be denied that Khatris were politicaly dominant force in sikh as well as punjab region. All of the gurus being khatri, banda bahadar being khatri etc…. I had given example of the average sikh soldier not knowing what he is fighting for in WWI and wwII(to a lesser extent) as well as in crushing mutines that came about in the 1857 period. How can you reconcile those aspects as being a saint soldier. Simply put they were soldiers.
Doordarshan,
Has there ever been a sikh or gurkha Field Marshall?
No. They have been only two Field Marshalls in Indian Army: Cariappa and Sam Manekshaw. Only rarest of the rare are made Field Marshalls in any army of the world except military dictatorships. Cariappa was the first Indian for dozen of things: leading a division, first Indian Brigadier General, Major General, General, and he earned his legend in Mesopotamia in WW I, and Waziristan later. Manekshaw, a Parsee @ Burma front in WW 2 and 1971.
Chief of Army, Navy, Air Force………is a wide mixed bag from all regions, religions, castes.
Currently, the one of the deputy Chief of Indian Army is a Muslim so have been Air Marshalls in past. Current Chief of Indian Army is a Sikh. About 6-7 Air Marshalls of IAF have been Anglo-Indians.
I think the highest a Gurkha has risen is at present the ADC to President of India is a Gurkha Officer. That is quite an honor, although ceremonial.
Camille,
With due respect, the best work for Sikhs will have to come from someone who is deeply rooted in Punjab and India. Not from US, not at all.
Like Biologists to be real great one has to look @ lot of samples. Same for a Geologists. Same for a Chemists. Same for any one……..you have to sample the whole bandwidth.
Therefore, someone who writes a seminal work for Sikhs has to spend quality time and researching every aspect in Punjab/ India looking at all the spectrum. Why? Because out of 23 million Sikhs today, 20 million live in India.
This dictum holds for any scholarship…..be close to target rich environment, and sample widely. Our soon to be PhD, Abhi to be a great astrobiologist has to look at lot of samples, rather talking about it from an investment bank building in NYC.
Camille, according to sources in my family, British did grab land from some people. This is how it worked: There were two kinds of “jagirdars” (Landlords) in punjab, the one’s who were appointed or given land by various “riasat” (Kingdom/principality, for example patiala riasat, nabha, kapurthala etc.) the others were strongmen who occupied land from the times of the “misls”. The one who were patronized by the kings were also closer to the British. The land was taken away from landlords selectively based on their affection towards the British. This happened around 1870’s this whole process was most likely called “jamabandi” as far as I can recall. The land that the British snatched was actually given to the people who actually were already cultivating it and paying taxes to the landlord. By caste both jagirdars/landlords and cultivators (“Mujaarey” in Punjabi/urdu?) were Jatt unlike in some other states where Jagirdars and cultivators were of different castes. The tax was collected by a appointee of the British government and a portion of this tax was given back to the Jagirdar/landlord from whom the land was initially snatched this continued until after independence until Indian govt initiated land consolidation in Punjab called “Murabbe-bandi”. In the end this whole process worked better for the general agrarian population.
This an account from my memory as I heard from my father and uncles. Pleas correct me and excuse me if I am wrong
Hmmm, so the British inspired revival of Khalsa-ism was sanguine after all. It reversed the turn to indefensible brahminism, casteism, widow-burning, idol-worship……
So the Gurkhas were the most disproportionally over-represented group in the British Indian Army followed by the Sikhs. Muslims were accurately represented. While hindus (non-gurkha), being the least “martial” of the desi population, were the the most under-represented.
No comments on the Kshatriyas, the oldest “martial race” of India? Or even the Rajputs? Razib, where are you?
While hindus (non-gurkha), being the least “martial” of the desi population, were the the most under-represented.
Yes, you can say that.
However, it is more complicated.
The Britishers made sure that Hindus and Muslims had a parity in numbers in Armed forces. It was a brilliant strategic move.
Then you treat Gurkhas and Sikhs as special cases, and have their full loyalty. However, in last stages of British Raj, Gurkha regiment refused to open fire the unarmend Pathans (followers of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan) in NW Frontier – the Bristishers knew their time was up.
Later, they added a lot of Christians and others even more than Sikhs around 1945. I suspect a lot of them were in the airforce.
Interesting factoid.
I recall a picture of the statue of an authentic original Rajput warlord dressed exactly like central asian nomads, whose head had been chopped off by colonial britishers (perhaps out of jealousy).
Lets not forget that Babur, the founder of the Mughal Dynasty, was also a mongol-turk who traced his ancestry to both Tamerlane and Genghis Khan.
But the Gurkhas did not hesitate to open fire on the sikhs/punjabis in the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre.
CLWAT
This is going in circles and getting nowhere fast, but my argument is that Sikhs cannot be an ethnic group. My great-grandfathers were from Poonia and Jalandhar on my dad’s side, and Lahore/Amritsar on my mom’s side. There, I’m done with it. If you want to keep beating a dead horse, please feel free to continue.
KT:
KT, you are preaching to the choir, but I also think this is a naive argument. So no one in the U.S. should cover history on any other region of the world because they’re not “inundated” in it? No offense, but brother, please!
HM: Thanks, the anecdote is interesting. That’s not how it worked for my family, but I’m sure the system is complex and that our singular familial experience is not the experience of Punjabis in general.
And once again, because I think it fittingly sums up martial race theory, bakwas!
But the Gurkhas did not hesitate to open fire on the sikhs/punjabis in the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre.
When did that happen. 1919.
I said in last stages…….I am talking about an incidence in 1930s, and such incidences later.
One of the intelligence dispatches now declassified in England shows that Britishers at the height of freedom movement (1940s) could not trust Indian army on a day-to-day basis for internal control. Example: Bombay Naval Mutiny.
kush, you feeding the troll bro?
Anyone buying into this “martial races” nonsense is an historical ignoramus. History tells us that the invincible warriors of yesterday end up as the perennially-defeated wimps of today, and vice versa.
Just look at the laughable record of the modern italian descendants of the mighty Romans; or the french “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” of today, whose ancestors had once conquered much of Europe; or the Viking conquerors of Russia who ended up as slaves of the Mongols and Turks, and then went on to turn the tables on their erstwhile enslavers; or the arabs who conquered once-mighty Persia and Byzantium and then ended up relinquishing their martial status to their turkish slaves, and who today are regularly defeated by tiny Israel; and so on.
The Sikhs/Punjabis flattering themselves as a martial race should be reminded of the fact that the afghans, mongol-turks etc who took the throne in Delhi, rolled over them first….with the greatest ease.
Just look at the laughable record of the modern italian descendants of the mighty Romans; or the french “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” of today, whose ancestors had once conquered much of Europe; or the Viking conquerors of Russia who ended up as slaves of the Mongols and Turks, and then went on to turn the tables on their erstwhile enslavers; or the arabs who conquered once-mighty Persia and Byzantium and then ended up relinquishing their martial status to their turkish slaves, and who today are regularly defeated by tiny Israel; and so on.
this is totally correct, now:
The Sikhs/Punjabis flattering themselves as a martial race should be reminded of the fact that the afghans, mongol-turks etc who took the throne in Delhi, rolled over them first….with the greatest ease.
don’t you think what you said above would have more credibility if you didn’t seem to exhibit glee at brown people gettin’ slaughtered by their “superiors”? ah, but winning the argument isn’t your point.
and bro, i’m just trying to get you an education at how not to insult, offend even, ‘k?
I think this is disputable. The Anglo-Sikh wars were quite hard fought and, and by 1920 there was the Rowlatt Act, Jallianwala Bagh, and the Gurudwara Morchas, as well as the Ghadar movement as well as figures like Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh, and Randhir Singh, among many others. Point being there was considerable opposition.
I wouldn’t take the above nonsense as an ‘interesting factoid’. The Hindu Jaats I’ve seen in Delhi region (who are the same as Haryanvi Jaats) don’t look particularly different from the Punjabi Jatts I know, and I sure didn’t see any ‘asian features’ as described here. Slim build? Less hairy? Dude have you ever even SEEN any of those people?! It’s possible the ancestors of Jatts/Jaats (at least partially) were Scythian and Hun invaders from Central Asia…that doesn’t mean they looked ‘asian’. They were most likely an Iranian people, as are the Pashtuns (who also don’t look asian and have central asian roots). Rajputs also probably hail from the same mix of Central Asian and Indian blood, and no doubt a lot of central asian influence lives on in Rajput and Jat customs and traditions, as well as traditional clothing.
Boss did you learn how to read? What i wrote was that they show asian features in high numbers. Now if you dont understand that than you would be one of those jokers who just blindly says all punjabis are fairskinned. And hell yeah i know atleast 200 of them….and 30-40 show such features.
This coming from the guy who asks ad nauseum ‘when did the British ever take any land away’ even when it’s been explained to him several times.
No, I never learned how to read.
Amitabh, Doordarshan is an animal troll. he likes to insult & offend because of self-image issues due to his small south asian pensis. he likes to un-educate because he wants everyone to be as disliked as he is. we shouldn’t feed the monster the poop he thrives upon (who knows what his next username will be?).
anyway, Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. everyone should look at this figure, lest they be insulted, offended even.
Wow, so many comments and spirited defence in favor of “martial races”..
Personally, I think “Britishers” form the best martial race, just by the size of their empire.. and now Americans can claim that glory.. The best thing about the Brits is that they don’t even have to indulge in “real fighting”.. but just use “psy-ops” to manipulate the people they rule over by offering money and pride of “martial race” to get the required number of “sacrificial lambs”.. 🙂
FYI, the Huns were of mongoloid not iranian origins.
The Pashtuns arent the only afghans. The presence of mongoloid blood in large numbers of afghans is evident. The Hazaras are almost pure mongols. The Uzbeks of afghanistan are less so, but they are still visibly very much part-mongoloid. Then there are the turkmen.
The proportion of mongoloids keeps increasing the closer you get to the central asian heartland, until in places like Kazakhstan the mongoloids are the majority race. The stereotypical Uzbek, the largest ethnicity in central asia, does not look iranian at all. And thats where Babur, Tamerlane et al hailed from. Afghanistan was regularly conquered by mongoloid and part-mongoloid warriors from the steppes: huns, turks, mongols etc. That spilled over to north India.
That the central asian mongoloid conquerors of India did not leave any trace of their blood in the native population is an absurd proposition. Certainly it is much diluted, since India is much further from central asia and the huns, turks etc came mostly as all-male armies who intermingled with the natives. The Mughal Dynasty of India, for example, was started not by iranian people but by central asians. Looking at later Mughals such as Aurangzeb with his heavy beard you would erroneously conclude that he wasn’t at all mongoloid. Yet we know that his ancestors on the male side were mongol-turks. In his autobiography the Baburnama, Babur the original Mughal takes great pride in his turco-mongol ancestry and describes the mongoloid appearance of his father. His grandson Akbar, the greatest Mughal by far, remained smooth-cheeked and central-asian looking:
http://sangha.net/messengers/akbar.jpg
When it comes to the so-called “martial races”, no one can match the martial record of the mongol and turko-mongol warriors of the steppes. They have ruled over not only India, but also China, Persia, Arabia, Russia, eastern europe etc.
That was my point. The question was posed rhetorically.
One example of a military dictator who anointed himself Field Marshall is the pathan Ayub Khan of Pakistan.