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.
Yes, as confirmed by the fact that the Khalsa under Guru Gobind Singh achieved a battlefield victory rate of…..86%, and the whole enterprise resulted in Aurangzeb himself agreeing to cease hostilities and revise his own religious bigotry on his death-bed (verified by documented correspondence with the Guru and the Emperor’s letters to his own sons, in his own words). In fact, the Khalsa of the time were such incompetent warriors that…..the future Emperor Bahadur Shah asked Guru Gobind Singh to provide military assistance during the war of succession, with the Guru agreed to.
Yep, they were “defeated” with the “greatest ease”. Except they weren’t, on both counts. And let’s not mention the extremely heavy casualties they inflicted on the British during the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars.
Plus of course there was the small matter of Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s empire, stretching from the Khyber Pass in the west, to Kashmir in the north, touching the borders of Tibet, to the Sind River in the south and in the east to Himachal Pradesh, plus of course the historical greater Punjab region. And the number of Sikh soldiers in both world wars. Terrible, incompetent soldiers, obviously.
Insulted and offended brown folk who want to be “educated on” the previous paragraph can read about the Maharajah here and his empire (along with the previous 18th century confederecy) here.
Educate yourself, lest you get ideas above your station regarding your inferiority compared to the almighty divine warriors of the sands of Arabia and the steppes of Central Asia.
Floridian,
I’ve noticed the silence on the above too.
Actually I did mention them briefly during my reply to AlMfD. My family has some Rajput ancestry (long story). However, I do have some close friends who are from Rajasthani Rajput Kshatriya backgrounds, so they’d probably be in a better position than me to discuss the subject, although I do have some knowledge in the area.
Hairy_D,
Brilliant and much-needed post #172. I don’t know how much more I can add to that, apart from saying that it’s not merely being a warrior which is the most important thing, but the reasons why one is engaged in warfare, the methods one uses to attempt to achieve victory, and exactly whom one chooses to fight against. Simply being a soldier doesn’t automatically mean one has some kind of inherent nobility.
Curious troll minds want to know: Did the Nihungs join up with the British army or was their glory pre-British? Also isn’t the “12 o clock joke” a debased testament to their pre-British martial history?
Doordarshan, you actually make some good points about the Turkic-Mongol peoples, Hazaras, etc, and the Mughal rulers of India. But I don’t see any traces of that physiognomy in the Jatts/Jaats. Nor do I see any physical differences between Jatts and Jaats themselves, except that as you go south from Punjab, people start looking more ‘desi’ and less ‘Iranian’ (for lack of a better word), and I think this applies to the Jaats too. Anyway, your theory that Jatts and Jaats are different, despite having variations of the same name, and that HARYANVI JAATS, who are FURTHER SOUTH than Punjabi Jatts, somehow preserve features of central asian invaders more strongly than Punjabi Jatts, who are NORTH of Haryana yet managed to avoid retaining central asian features, is baffling to say the least. I await your wise-ass response but this will be my last comment on this particular topic. And let me amend my earlier comment by saying the ancestors of the Jats were probably Scythian (and not Hun). Happy?
Doordarshan whats your point man?
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.
Really? I kindo thought that the area was under the control of the rajputs by then. If I was right, and i might not be, when muhammad Gori came with his raids it was against a territory controlled by Prithviraj Chauhan(a rajput). He didn’t really steam roll either, he lost a war and was captured and brought over to the king. Prithviraj decided that he would be nice and pardoned the asshole(excuse my french). True to his mongolian way, he came right back and took the area. When Babur came in and attacked delhi, it was against the delhi sultanate(again not really a punjabi/sikh).
Jai Singh is a determined historian and courageously concocts his own history (his+story) and, in fact, goes to the extent of mathematically counting the number of wars the Sikhs may have won in his infantile fantasies. Nowhere, just about nowhere, is it mentioned that Aurangzeb
He begins to sound a bit scholarly when he refers to fictitious letters written by the mortally ailing despot to his defiant sons. One cannot be thankful enough for small mercies but if Mr Jai Singh has an iota of academic rigor, he would do well to cite the concocted reference precisely – chapter and verse.
I do not have the desire to break Sardar sahib’s heart but the next piece of unverified information we get to hear from him is the assistance Bahadur Shah sought from the last Guru. That is a pure figment of Jai Singh’s imagination. No one is saying that the Sikhs have been “incompetent” warriors. The point, however, is that they have never ever won a war on their own. They were not like the Marathas who went on pushing the invaders till Panipat. The Sikhs, on the other hand, were extremely wary of taking on the collective might of the British during the days of the so-called Sikh Empire. They were almost scared.
Secondly, do not use the so-called martial race status – a racist description at the best of times – generically. The only Sikhs who fought during and immediately after the times of the Gurus were either Sikh Jats or the Ramgarhias. Remember the 12 Sikh Misls? 11 of these misls were Jat and the 12th a Ramgarhia misl. The Ahluwalia misl was essentially a Jat misl with an Ahluwalia general. The Khatris, the Aroras, the Arains did not figure anywhere in the vastly exaggerated “martial-race” exploits of the Sikhs. (Have you ever come across a single Grover, Sethi, Sachdev, Narang… doing anything worthwhile on any battlefield in any corner of the world. And I do not hold it against them. Why should they fight when there are other more meaningful and profitable enterprises to pursue? Lt Gen Jagjit Singh Arora was definitely a sole and rare exception in this regard.)Only much later in the 20th century, the mazhabi Sikhs got included amongst the army in a significantly large numbers to the great chagrin of the Sikh jats.
Do not also forget the extremely regressive role of the Sikh mercenary militia during the 1857 rising is no secret. Participation in the two WWs without any religious/ideological belief and for purely economic reasons tells its own sordid but sad story.
Regressive role.. huh.. I’m grateful to the Sikhs for helping the Brits put down the “jihadi” mutiny and rebellions by a few petty kings/ranis/sultans..
Jai, when you respond to #206, keep your cool, bro. Hit him with the facts.
Sikhs had no reason to support an uprising orchestrated by the very same people (sepoys), under the very same flag (Mughal), that had been banes on Sikh history in the recent as well as not so recent past.
Panini, are you also going to deny that the Kashmiri Pandits sent a delegation to Guru Tegh Bahadur (9th guru), asking for his help after the Mughal representative in Kashmir gave all the Pandits 6 months to convert to Islam or be slaughtered? And that Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed his life for that cause (the protection of a different religion, just on the basis of the principle alone)?
While it is true that Jats and Ramgarhias were represented way beyond their percentage of the Sikh population in terms of fighting in the Sikh armies, I want to point out that Hari Singh Nalwa, ferocious general under Ranjit Singh, who WON many battles in the NWFP and Afghanistan for Ranjit Singh, was of Khatri background. All the Gurus were also khatri background.
During Ranjit Singh’s time, the British were extremely wary of taking on the might of Ranjit Singh. They were almost scared. Only after he died, when everything was in disarray, and the Dogras were pulling all the strings, and there was no effective leader, did they attack.
That is precisely the point: all the Sikh Gurus were Khatris. From the 2nd Guru onward, it was a family affair. From the 4th Guru onward, it was all kindreds. Does it not its own story?
The Kashmiri Pandits did go to the 9th Guru. That is a documented fact. Why should I deny that? I hold no brief for Aurangzeb. He was a terrible ruler and a monstrous usurper. You do not seem to get the point. I am greatly in awe of the Sikh Gurus: I do believe that Guru Nanak is an incredible thinker-poet; Guru Angad a brilliant linguist; Guru Amardas be praised till eternity for the Anand he wrote; Guru Ramdas for the genuinely secular concept of the people’s Harimandir; Guru Arjun for the incredible poetic vision that assimilated the best of our syncretic thought in the form of Guru Granth; the 6th Guru, Hargobind, for formulating a clear ideology of faith; the 9th Guru for his astounding poetry and martyrdom; the 10th Guru for his intrepid and never-say-die spirit and for putting the wretched of the earth at par with himself.
For me, the 10th Guru becomes infinitely greater for not winning a single war and yet never conceding a defeat – to keep on walking in the face of the stiffest of adversity. Very few people have the capacity to walk all the way from Delhi to Aurangabad to pose a question (not to fight but pose a question) to a tyrant whose army had put four of his sons to inhuman death. I shudder to think with what faith in his heart – forsaken by his own Sikhs – he would have walked the lonely stretch. Sikhs are poets-warriors which make them unique.
But I am not into myth-making unlike many others.
The above two statements doesn’t square with me. During the last days of Aurangjeb, there was some rapprochement going between the Sikhs and Muslim emperor. It is also mentioned that Bahadur Shah asked for during the war of succession. If that is the case then doesn’t it make more sense had Sikhs sided with Mughals than British with whom they fought bloody wars more recently?
Can one of you (Jai or Amitabh) explain?
PS. I don’t know much of Sikh history and am trying learn little by following this thread.
don’t not doesn’t
Circus in Jungle, you are asking the wrong people and on the wrong forum. Imagine Amardeep starting this highly inflammable, if not regressive, discussion! I’m most disappointed.
135: I don’t think this post is highly inflammable. It is a good topic. Thanks Amardeep.
Some seem to be very jealous defenders of Sikh martial tradition. I don’t agree with all off Jai’s points but labeling them or this whole thread as regressive is going too far. imho.
Some people are going to post things with little thought or incorrect stuff or their prejudices or their biases. Who isn’t guilty of atleast one? There is nothing wrong with that as long as one should be able to call spade a spade but without using too many adjectives.
I beg to differ with you Circus in Jungle. To start a debate about “martial race” in this day and age and to open the discussion with a public declaration of your own sense of pride about the military services of the Sikhs makes one very sad indeed. I think overall Amardeep has done excellent work in initiating some very thought provoking and productive debates but in this one he has made a clear faux pas. Imagine people holding forth on racial features of the jats from Haryana, Rajasthan and Punjab! People referring to the Rajput side of their ancestry!
What exactly is wrong with that. People referring proudly to their ancestry lets us know of the stories and propaganda that they grew up with.. It is the same for all of us, isn’t it??. The reason why I took the handle “Ponniyin Selvan” even though I can’t possibly have any relation with the real “Ponniyin Selvan” (a great Chola king, BTW) shows the propaganda that I have been fed with and the stories I believe in. 🙂 Also “Tiger” is the symbol of the Cholas and you would know from what stories that Tamil Tigers in Srilanka got inspired from.. Everyone believes in “stories” about God / religion / prophet / ancestry / race etc.. and it is interesting to know those “stories”.
There, there, Panini. Don’t take it so hard. Here, watch this, you’ll feel better.
I would love to know more about this.
Thanks Amitabh! That was very thoughtful of you! I’m a non-practising Hindu who feels like a Sikh for all the wrong (non-martial) reasons. I’m close to Guru Nanak and feel the warmth of his poetry each passing day. I couldn’t ask for more.
Actually, one of the greatest fights in Sikh history was the battle at chamkaur sahib. What is your opinion of that pannini?
Ok, guys, this thread has drifted quite a bit from the original topic, so it’s time to close it. Perhaps we’ll have a discussion about the Chola kings sometime soon.
Amitabh,
I like that style of bhangra, fluid and within the beat. the other style with all the picking up people and the overuse of the dang to me seems a little overdone