December 20, 2006
The Myth of "Martial Races"Issues
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.
amardeep on December 20, 2006 11:02 AM in History, Issues · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
There was an Australian author i heard recently on cbc*. she was talking about a novel based loosely on her grandfather's experiences in the australian bush and about her experiences as an australian in the UK. I was surprised to hear the bitter notes. she grew up in an era in which england was the mothership, the home of civilization. Australia was the outskirts, where an intellectually inclined person was frustrated by her boorish companions. Going to the england should have been like coming home to one's own. Not. she was shunned as one from the colonies. her accent gave her away and it lead to tremendous bitterness on her part. she eventually returned to australia and created her new life.
the surprise for me was that england is, as it has been for quite a while, a deeply class segregated society. i wouldnt be surprised if the colonial rule exacerbated caste and racial divisions in india to facilitate governance. it would have been the logical extension of things at home. anyhow, i concur with your thesis.
*cant place her name. will see if i can dig it out.
Fascinating post Amardeep.
Great topic and post, Amardeep. I see a great discussion emerging from this.
have some of the largest men in India, i.e., above average height and build, on an average? Of course, this is far from all that is needed to make a good soldier. Perhaps this is just a result of my own unquestioning imbibing of the stereotypes.Let me start with this - forgetting about the verity of the "martial races" theory for the moment, do these groups :
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 above cannot be understated. Generations of Sardars/Punjabi Pakistanis have grown up with this nonsense.
I meant cannot be overstated ;)
Aussies are quite bitter. That's why winning the Ashes means so much to them. London is full of Australians, it's almost like an Aussie city in some parts. Plus, Britain is not as hidebound a society in terms of class structure as some people represent, certainly today. Class consciousness of a kind different to places like America exists, but that's for a variety of reasons, one of which I think has to do with how the industrial revolution first happened in England, and the aspirations of the workers were always mediated by their position in a constitutional monarchy and a mercantile middle class that engaged in refining rights and citizenship by a democratic confrontational attitude (and Marx and Engels both flourished and found refuge in Britain) -- but anyway....that's off topic.
++++
Amardeep, I was just reminded of a debate I listened to about Scottish independence. The Scottish National Party wants to hold a referendum should it win the Scottish elections, and the guy was talking about Scotland was a nation that wanted to distance itself from the colonialist overlord England, and he got shot down quick when the opponent pointed out that Scotland grew rich from colonialism, Glasgow was 'the second city of the British Empire' at one time, and Scottish people participated voraciously in the colonial enterprise. Not strictly to do with this, but their designation as a 'warrior race' was, I suppose, all part of this, and it just shows how myths and certain self created, idealised political narratives persist across history and people and time.
Kurma, it may be true of Punjabis and Pakhtuns, but it certainly isn't true of the Gurkhas. In fact, there are dozens of quotes from British officers in Gurkha regiments in Farwell's book. They keep saying, "my little guys fought admirably" and things of that nature.
Farwell even mentions that there was an unofficial rule that no British officer taller than 5'5" would be sent to a Gurkha regiment -- so as to fit in better with the troops. (They also all had to learn Gurkhali)
Another interesting anecdote: when they fought in the trenches in World War I, the Gurkhas had to construct special steps to be able to see over the top. In a couple of battles they were slaughtered because they were too short to see the Germans coming over the top of the trenches dug by other (British/French) soldiers!
As for the Dogras and Garwhalis, I don't know.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the martial races theory had some merit to it (Amardeep's valid points notwithstanding)...and I'm not trying to be trollish here. Physical and cultural differences made it so. That being said, it's only because MOST Indians were not martial...our so-called martial races were martial mainly in the Indian context...but compared to the average population in European countries, or Africa, they were not particularly martial, probably just average.
Fascinating !!! Fascinating !!! post. I have always been so so much interested in the history of the so-called "martial races". Thank you for this great post.
I completely agree with your analysis.
Its absolutely frustrating when these "historians" (I am talking about Byron Farwell) keep gazing at other cultures with the simplistic and in my view racist sterotypes. Why is it that the word "tribe" the word "culture" is never associated with western european populations?? I think people have had debate about that here in the past. The fact that the european "culture" is not considered "ethnic" ... and so on.
- Maratha was called martial race by the British, but didnt they participate in the 1857?? (I am not sure, I cant look it up right now)
- Another interesting point is that, the majority population of Pakistan is part of the "martial race" list. Hussian Haqqani, a former Pakistani dimplomat mentioned this in his book Pakistan:Between Mosque and Military, about Pakistan and how being "martial race" created, in his opinion, a false pride, leading that nation into militarism and underminig democracy.
But THANKS for writing on this topic that, I am so much fascinated about and want to know more. GReat Post.
One more point Amardeep...the so-called 'Bengal Army' was not composed primarily of Bengalis...it was mostly Biharis and people from today's eastern Uttar Pradesh. And this is where I agree with your criticism of the martial races theory...those people were trained to be very effective soldiers...it was the Mutiny that ended their role serving under the British.
really interesting post. there's a bit in Michael Palin's Himalaya where he attends a Gurkha recruitment drive in Nepal (cut short by Maoist dangers) by the British army, and the enthusiasm, pride and drive and (desperation?) of the young men (boys really) seeking to make it and get out of poverty was evident. on the other hand, the gurkhas, despite their vaunted status in the British army, have had to fight for equal pay after their services are no longer needed.
Is the creation of "martial races" anything more than and extreme form of stereotyping? The difference in this case is that you had a government who was willing to codify and exploit those stereotypes. I am not denying that these populations may have some genetic traits that stood out to the government, but say, in arguendo, that a major rebellion broke out in Madras in 1857, would the British have declared that Tamils are a martial race? The whole system seems to be stereotypes created by historical events. I refuse to believe that any single population of people is more prone or suited for war.
In naming martial castes in India, the British had an easier time appopriating them for their imperial mission. A perfect example is the Sikhs.
The opposite of the valorized martial caste, (whose members exuded fortitude, nobility, etc.) were the criminal castes, e.g., the Tamil Kallars. Some of the criminal castes demonstrated sustained antipathy to British rule.
In 'Castes of Mind,' Columbia University Profesor Nicholas Dirks has an excellent essay on the martial castes, from Todd's Rajputs to the Sikhs. With regard to the Sikhs, he claims that the British in effect reformed Sikhism so that its adherents in the army conformed to 'martial ideals.'
I don't believe there is such a thing as a martial caste. The short and scrawny Buddhist farmers of Vietnam transformed into belligerent Viet Cong gurillas to succesfully fight off American GIs within a matter of months!
"i wouldn't be surprised if the colonial rule exacerbated caste and racial divisions in India to facilitate governance"
Yes British did that. The present day caste system you see in India is not what it is before British ruled India. I don't remember where I read this, British divided each caste into sub castes. I don't know whether this was intentional or not.
Great post Amardeep. I have been troubled by this label too, specially the word "Race" in it. I agree that divide and rule policy might be working behind this categorization. Another reason could be to facilitate recruiting from these communities by branding them more martial then others. I am sure there must be "now unclassified" documents from that period detailing the strategy behind "martial race" theory. Its sad that people in these communities have bought in to the rhetoric and are still doing that.
For those who may not be aware... The so called Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups of India were actually tabulated by the British. The independant India picked that list up and used it for its affirmative action program. Dont assume that I am anti-reservation or anything. I am just pointing out that Caste grouping and codifying groups into Castes was excerbated during the British rule.
(And oh Comment #9 is me too ...)
It's still going on, Gurkha soldiers who have served in the British Army in recent campaigns were struggling for equal pension rights, to be fair some in British media took up the issue.
Add the Kodavas to that list.
The pension rights question mentioned by Whose God (#11) and Red Snapper (#17) was also described in this article. I had the link while writing the post, but couldn't think of a way to work it in.
Amardeep,
To add to your write up on Gurkhas
a) Wikipedia article
b) Nepalikhukuri.com
If you talk to any Nepali, they are very proud of Gurkhas, so are British and Indians (particularly Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw). However, the Nepalis (ones I have met) do not take martial race idea any seriously.
As Red Snapper said, the Gurkhas serving British Army were treated were shabbily by the British society, they (all of them that have served English) were only granted full citizenship only in 2006.
Even in India, they was some tension between West Bengal Government and Gurkhas in Darjeeling area.
just to close off a loose end in #1 above - my australian writer refernce was Kate Grenville. Her Secret River won the commonealth prize and was shortlisted for the booker.
To continue the thought. I am really leery of entrenchment of the mentality that some races are more 'martial' than other. Have had some run ins with nutters in the past. it must be their klingon genes.
but here's a word of advice from apollo creed, "be a thinker, not a stinker".
I don't think it's any coincidence that the homelands of all the "martial races" are on the periphery of India. After the Mutiny there was a shift in policy from an army of neighbors to an army of strangers... an army of relative outsiders with few ties to the communities they guarded and fewer reservations about imposing the will of the British on them.
Tamil troops were actually involved in the most serious mutiny before the Big One... at Vellore in 1806. Almost all of the sepoys in the Madras Presidency, however, remained loyal during 1857. Tamil (and other South Indian) soldiers were still phased out in the aftermath of the mutiny. Aside from a few units of combat engineers and temporary units raised during times of great need (i.e. World Wars) Southies virtually disappeared from the Colonial army. They were considered to be the opposite of the "martial races." The British actually had a list of "effeminate races"... one which did not have much connection to reality. It included Tamils (formerly the Vikings of South Asia), Mallus (Nairs, anyone?) and even Marathas (!)...
by the way, the notion of martial race has also been actively propagated by that senator who recently defeated the 'macaca' incumbent (the one with the big nose) - sorry bad with names and lazy with clicking - he has avidly pushed the idea that america owes a lot to the irish-scot martial races. i am sure the guy, webb, it was webb, uses this to psych himself with, 'what would a warrior do in such a situation?'. maybe there is something to it. if you believe it, then you are it. i think therefore i am a yam. yes i am madam, a damn yam.
It's very popular all over India to have Gurkhas serve as security guards. In fact, the word for security guard in some places is 'gurkha' regardless of the ethnicity of the person. In TN, AP and Kerala, it is considered prestigious to have real Gurkha watchman. (There is some prestige associated with having security guards at all). Nothing but stereotyping.
Garhwalis, I've known very few and they are a mixed bunch. Dogris
It really irritates me that India continues to have a Sikh, Jat etc.. regiment and continues to use other instruments of colonial oppression.
FYI, the Webb book is Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America
It really irritates me that India continues to have a Sikh, Jat etc.. regiment and continues to use other instruments of colonial oppression.
Since General Vaidya's time, the regiments like Sikh, Jat, Maratha are mostly in name. The soldiers are mixed even though the majority might come from the name's region.
As for officer's class, they can be of any region. Sam Manekshaw for a long time was associated with Gurkha regiment.
Roorkee (north India) has a long history of sappers (military engineers) that goes pre-WWs, and is closely linked to Thomason College/ University of Roorkee/ now IIT for training. The name of the sappers are Bengal Sappers.
Interesting. As far as I know, the idea of "martial races" in India goes way back, to the 5th century or so. (More or less.) The 36 Rajput clans (Princely clans of Rajasthan) are said to have been descended from three main branches: the Sun "race," descended from Rama, the Moon "race," descended from Krishna, and a third category, the four Agnikula, or "fire-born" clans, said to have been born of a sacrificial fire in Mt. Abu, Rajasthan. As with a lot of the history of Rajasthan, the line between historical fact and legend is blurry. But the "fire-born" clans were considered warrior clans. In essence, martial races. This was way before the British colonists showed up on the scene. I wonder if they took this concept, twisted it a bit, and applied it in their own interests. It wouldn't have been the first time...
When the British handed back Hong Kong to China, it abandoned the Gurkhas and denied them the right of abode in the UK. Gurkhas became an orphaned people in Hong Kong with men hiring themselves out as security guards and women working in pubs and restaurants on account of their better command of English than the locals.
The British did insist that Sikh recruits be turbanned/bearded (keshdhari), and that they adhere to the external symbols of the Khalsa.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the martial races theory had some merit to it (Amardeep's valid points notwithstanding)...and I'm not trying to be trollish here. Physical and cultural differences made it so.
culture matters, training matters. small romans easily defeated larger (in average size and numbers) celtic and german armies easily 2,000 years ago. the british armies, mostly south and east indians, defeated punjabis, afghans and marathas before 1850.
Hmmmm, Punjabi's are a martial race. This might explain why every so often I show up at work shirtless, covered in camelflouge paint and telling everyone "If it bleeds, we can kill it!" when asked how to handle the competition.
Sikhs as a group were heavily militarised before the British had any dealings with them. It was fairly common throughout the 18th Century, prior to Maharajah Ranjit Singh's empire, for Sikhs to be constantly heavily-armed like modern-day Nihangs due to the ongoing threats and invasions from the northwest. Technically, committed Sikhs are supposed to be as disciplined in their physical fitness and martial arts skills as they are in their more spiritual practices (listening to kirtan, regular prayers in the morning and the evening etc), a legacy from Guru Gobind Singh's time and indeed from several generations before re: Guru Hargobind onwards.
The martial aspect is therefore an inalienable aspect of what Sikhs are supposed to be like (or aspire to) as a group. However, there are two points which should be clarified: Firstly, Sikhs are not a "race" -- and the warrior aspect is due to the cultural ramifications of religious teachings (so you could say that, to some extent, Sikhs belong to a "martial culture"). Secondly, in the "saint-soldier" Khalsa ideal, there is a specific reason why the "saint" part comes first; you could say that, ideally, Sikhs (at least the really committed ones) are supposed to be a "saintly group" first and foremost, and the "soldier" part - though important and intrinsic to the Sikh ethos -- is secondary, albeit a highly visible aspect.
I know that several commenters here will already be aware of all of the above, but I felt that it needed to be explicitly stated here in the context of this discussion.
Razib,
There are historical records by British soldiers of the time stating that they believed the Khalsa army to be the toughest adversaries they had ever faced anywhere during their efforts at colonial expansion, and the only group capable of actually defeating them.
There are historical records by British soldiers of the time stating that they believed the Khalsa army to be the toughest adversaries they had ever faced anywhere during their efforts at colonial expansion, and the only group capable of actually defeating them.
great.
to be clear, the only brown group who defeated them were afghans. but only because of the mountains and supply lines. in other words, the primary variable is not the people, it was terrain and other exogenous factors. do you think it is a coincidence that the groups under british rule the longest were the most pussyish in perception and the further north and west you go they were less so? anyway, this is just like the 'muslims are superior at fighting meme.' it ignores exogenous factors like the fact that muslims had easy supply lines to horses and that nomadic peoples tend to be better 'natural' warriors because of their lifestyle.
There are historical records by British soldiers of the time stating that they believed the Khalsa army to be the toughest adversaries they had ever faced anywhere during their efforts at colonial expansion, and the only group capable of actually defeating them.
Jai,
The Britishers said the same about the Gurkhas. In fact, Nepal was ruled by British indirectly, though their own Nepali king as a protectorate of British.
Quotes from Wikipedia:
They might be some cultural truth to it - the Sikhs, Gurkhas, etc.. However, every race and culture has a "poet warrior" be it Aborginis from Australia to Native Americans in North America to marauding horsemen in Middle East. That facts stands in part of the corner of the globe.
The Britishers were being crafty with divide and rule.
Correction: That facts about martial race stands in every corner of the globe.
The Britishers also said the same about Pathans and Pashtuns, and then brutually killed them.
So much for myth making.
A personal anecdote: The route to some of the holiest Hindu temples in the Uttaranchal area (Kedarnath, Yamunotri) involve trekking the last 5-10 miles on foot. The Gurkha and Garhwali youths run palinquin service for the old and not-so-physically-strong. The job is very demanding, carrying people up the steep inclines, all day every day in the "tourist season".
On one of my trips, I got talking to one of the "palki-wala" and he said a lot of the youths use this experience to develop physical strength, and then go join the military.
I sense a little South vs. North action brewing up. There is only one way to settle this. Representing the North will be Dalip "The Great Khali" Singh, who can barely speak or move and representing the South will be that he/she that just got his/her medal taking away at the Asian Games for being a guy but competing in the women's 800 meter. Power vs Speed.
The Wikipedia article specifically makes the note that the term "Martial Race" emerged as a British concept. The problem with this designation is the word "race". Naturally any claim that a specific race of people are somehow more skilled than others at "something" can be extremely hard to justify logically. hmmm...we have got to hand it to the British though. For an island the size of TamilNadu their impact on world history has been disproportional. What an "Imperialist Race":-) My question is - how come entire groups of people - viz. the Native Indians, Zulus never turn towards agriculture for their needs but remained focused on hunter/gatherer. Even more interestingly were the Spartans. They seemed wholly intent on conquest. Within the Sikhs of old times was there a concept of different kinds of Sikhs - Defenders, Agriculturists, Blacksmiths etc..? Perhaps something in the geography where these people lived oriented them towards conquest/defence. Is it possible that every single Sikh male had always to be prepared for war and hence devoted all their time to it?
I think the wiki article hit the nail on the head. There are attributes that make a better soldier - loyalty, sacrificing the individual for the state etc...It seems highly unlikely that Upper Caste Hindus would willingly lay their lives down for any cause let alone the British. First the validity of the cause has to be debated and by that time the enemy has already bayonetted you.
I guess there is nothing wrong in being proud of ones heritage and at the same time realizing that there was a certain amount of manipulation at work in designating "martial races". I have been unfortunate enough to insult a Pathan on the cricket field and was the due recipient of three bouncers immediately following. Something, my kind intellectual tambram friends would never do. I guess it cuts both ways. One doesn't mess with a Pathan and at the same time they can have very ante-diluvian views on the roles of women or non-pathans in society, until of course you happen to hook one of those bouncers and then become one of them instantaneously.
However I do hope that the ABD Sikhs are not going to chest thump and head out to Iraq because we have had quite enough of war brother. Its all about love and peace, a little cocaine here, a little ganja there and hare rama hare krishna to all. "Imagine all the people..."
People need to stop citing Wikipedia articles because their not credible at all. The other day I was thinking of adding my name to the list of ex boyfriends of Salma Hayek on her profile on WIkipedia. If you look up that "Indians have small dongs" article on wikipedia, some one added that "Punjabi's however measured closer to blacks, in terms of size" in it. And no, it wasnt me.
The reputation of the Sikh army, before conquest by the British, was partly due to the reforms instituted by Jean-Baptiste Ventura and Paolo_Di_Avitabile -- part of which resulted in the Fauj-i-Khas a Sikh military brigade created along European lines.
Amitabh I'm going to go out on a limb here and say..., sounds more like you are sawing the limb you are sitting on.
Razib - stop whipping out that old saw culture. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest...when an alliance of Germanic tribes...ambushed and wiped out three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
The outcome of the battle established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next few hundred years...The Roman Empire never was able to conquer Germania, although many attempts were made.
Invincible armies have always been like unsinkable battleships - unsinkable until something sinks them!
Kush,
The other ranks, and JCOs are recruited from the communities or territory the regiment represents. This may sometimes mean many of a certain religious group such as in the case of the Sikh LI and Sikh Regiment that recruit Sikhs, while the Punjab Regiment recruits mostly Hindus. In the case of the Madras Regiment (Veera Madrasi! Adi! Kollu!) the other ranks come from the Southern States and tend to be from different religious groups although Madrasis from a area within the region may mostly belong to a certain religious group. For instance many Madras regiment soldiers from Tirunelveli are Christian (as have been some officers such as Brig.Thomas Thyagaraj hero of Khem Karan 1965 - Karo ya Maro fame or Adm.George Sushil Kumar and Adm.O.S.Dawson). While many Muslims from Central India and UP can be found in the Grenadiers (CQMH Abdul Hamid Param Vir Chakra 1965 was a Grenadier as was Col.Viswanathan hero of Kargil 1999) Many Buddhists serve with Mahars. The Indian Army's regiments are many so I won't hijack this thread talking about each and everyone of those tens of regiments. The officers of course are not from these regions and can be from anywhere. Gen J.J. Singh current Army chief is from the Maratha Light Infantry (Bolo Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Ki Jai!). Officers are expected to learn the language of their men and imbibe their customs and traditions. So during Ramzan entire companies of men with their Hindu COs will fast with their Muslim fellow soldiers. While in the Sikh LI a Christian commanding officer may be observing Guruparb; while a Muslim CO from UP in the Madras Regiment will celebrate Pongal with his men. Check out this picture of interfaith shrine of the Indian Army in Siachen The Indian Armed Forces employ pandits, granthis, maulvis, ministers, and bhikhus who travel to the front with their colleagues.
The Guards Regiment is the first of the mixed infantry regiments, a post-independence trend. The Para and Mech Inf are the other two. The Grenadiers too can be classified as such. Check out more on Indian Army regiments here http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Reg-Inf.html
Needless to say the other fighting arms in the Army and all of the Air Force and Navy are mixed.
The Indian Armed Forces are among the largest volunteer forces ever, and in both the World Wars of the last century were the largest volunteer groups constituted.
Amardeep,
This was an eyeopener.I never knew Marathas were classified as a Martial race by the British until now!
I hail from one of the 96 clans of Marathas I had once analyzed the similarities between the Maratha Clans and their Scottish counterparts ..But that is a different story altogether.
Thanks again for this informative , thoroughly researched post.
Jai
There are historical records by British soldiers of the time stating that they believed the Khalsa army to be the toughest adversaries they had ever faced anywhere during their efforts at colonial expansion, and the only group capable of actually defeating them.
This is clearly a self perpetuating myth specially within the sikh community and it cuts both ways as someone has mentioned before and Amardeep alluded to in the post, I am referring to male dominance, indo-canadian gangs and all that. Within the sikh community you might have noticed how jatt sikhs seem to have the prerogative over all things martial, whereas if you look closely various "Misl" leaders were from non-jatt castes (Jassa Singh ramgarhia and Ahluwalia), I am stating this as an example of myths about being martial within the sikh community.
great post!
Jai,
The British historians of the Indian army explicitly stated that it was they who kept the "Sikh religion" up to its "old standards," by not admitting shorn/unbabtized Sikhs and by implementing regimental dress codes. Try to get your hands on some accounts by George MacMunn and you will see that they felt they bore the imperative for religious reform.
The chracteristic effeminate race in India, was, of course, the Bengalis, established by no less an authority than Lord Macaulay himself. The Pakistani Army bought into the ideal
when they claimed that one martial race-Punjabi equalled five Bengalis and only slightly reneged when the country they claimed dominion over split up due to the machinations of the Indian army and Bangladeshi mukti behni freedom fighters.
The Indian Armed Forces are among the largest volunteer forces ever, and in both the World Wars of the last century were the largest volunteer groups constituted.
That is true.
I agree with your analysis.
I was referring to Vaidya Battalions where they have tried to mix at all levels more so.
Look at the history of Bengal Sappers and their mixed history. [No wikipedia]
Pankaj Mishra and others write that Hinduism is a myth created by the British:
Those pesky Brits did a lot of mythologising and inventing whilst in India it seems.
The messages on this board are staring to read out like a Lord of the Rings book. People talking about what clan they hail from and then telling stories about the great armies of germania and how they stole land from middle earth right before the elves invaded persia and used the midgets of persia for their great lower body strength.
You see what you've done now. I cant seperate reality from fiction.
Also I think the long essays on here mixed in with my nonsense must be quite annoying, so I will stop now.
On with the great stories of germania and the opinons of Lord Macaulay.
Razib - stop whipping out that old saw culture. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest...when an alliance of Germanic tribes...ambushed and wiped out three Roman legions led by Publius Quinctilius Varus.
The outcome of the battle established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next few hundred years...The Roman Empire never was able to conquer Germania, although many attempts were made.
boy, you don't know what you're getting into! the defeat upon varus was a temporary set back. the campaigns of germanicus to the elbe show quite clearly how easy it was to cut through germans with a good roman army. see chapter 2 of The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians to review the current consensus that economic factors (lack of taxable revenue) was the primary determinant of the lack of roman expansion to the east.
Some people will use any chance to get a dig in one Sikhs, anyway chance. Its so f-ing lame.
The idea of a martial race is ltotally lame in my opinion, but, there's also a cultural memory among Sikhs of trying to be brave in the face of persecution and its a little gut-churning to see that reduced to a flip arguement by people apprently without the knowledge of inclination to learn about our history. I'd say the the legacy of the "martial race" idea among Sikhs is not what leads to our "ultra-macho gold chain, bhangra-rap" stereotype, nor to domestic violence. I think its really just the stuff of puffed out kids. Sociologically, I don't think the concept of the "martial race" drives much of the sociological dynamic good or ill. Its all taken with a massive grain of salt, and if the British had come up with a "role" for the Sikhs that was not as salutory, I don't think it would have been embraced.
For one thing, the army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a real entity, and Sikhs had been fighting in organized formations for at least a generation by the time of the Anglo-Sikh wars. Those wars were themselves hard-fought and the outcome apparently at times in doubt. There is no doubt there was a infrastructure there before the British came. Sikhs used the military as an economic vehicle, and it worked quite well.
There can be no racial or in this case religous inclination to so-called "martial values" however
Invincible armies have always been like unsinkable battleships - unsinkable until something sinks them!
btw, i agree with this.
This is clearly off-hand and blaze generalizations. Can you connect the people who served in WW I and WW II with the so-called Daaku's of today by any strech of the imagination? Only if you want to go along with some "bhangra-rap ultra macho" paradigm caricature of Sikh-Punjabi culture
Oh, yeah let's also say something bad about Jattzz, because we all know they are sharabi goonda pindus. heartfelt breast-beating of "our community" but also flippant
p.s. not to threadjack, but hermann, the warleader of the cherusci who beat the romans was also named 'arminius.' he had roman training :)
By the 1900's Punjab was a hot-bed of inquilabi activity, and it was a multi-religous movement. The Shaheedi Jathas of thousands upon thousands of people in the 1900's who stood in front of British soldiers who beat them at times to death should be looked into by commetors on this thread. There was never a hint of violence as men and women walked toward those beatings, and the commitment to non-violence was quite moving according to commentators of the time.Info here on a leader of the non-violent movement in Punjab in the 1920s, Master Tara Singh
I don't mean by any strech of the imagination to direct that at Amardeep or the post, but to the comments. Amardeep is clearly more well-placed than me to speak on these issues :-)
Sahej
I was just trying to balance the "chest thumping" with some "breast beating" :) I a non religious person so I tend to discount the role of religion in everything. But I don't see any generalization in my comment and the way you read my Jatt comment is far removed from what I was saying.
Hm, shaanti shaanti. I think it was 12 o clock where I was typing. :-) (bara vagh gaya -- meaning it struck 12 o clock being a joke/insult that Sikhs get nonsensically angry every day at 12 o clock).
But the generalization is that "Jatts" are actually invested culturally in "chest-thumping". Am I wrong about that implication of your statement? I think culturally, what we see today as daaku culture is not the same as punjabi culture, its a poor substitute in the same way ghetto thug life is a poor representation of the more rich vein of african american culture.
I also think most everybody knows that many Misl leaders were not Jatt, as well as that the Gurujis themselves were not by any stretch of the imagination from a jatt background.
I think this particular culture of chest thumping is foreign even to Punjab; its a function of our diaspora....with good, bad and obnoxious qualities. Clearly the arrogant veneer of some sikh diaspora culture has rubbed people the wrong way though
OK, given the number of people who are going to believe anything, I'm going to make up some shit of my own. Did you know Mallus don't pee at all between Christmas and New Year's day?
yeah, people will say that like its the gods-honest truth, its pretty funny
Sahej, I think we are probably talking about the fine line between pride and prejudice. Sacrifice and fight for just causes in sikh History can be a source of pride but belief in sikhs being a "martial race" might be a source of prejudice.
I agree with you friend :-)
Razib,
Well the Romans sure knew what they had gotten into and kept clear of the Rhine for a loong time after that. Hermann was a hostage raised among the Romans (which as you know was a common way of keeping the peace in the days gone by among warring groups). The Romans were great at set-piece battles, well disciplined (and brutally so in ways that terrified even their adversaries). We know what decimation truly means right? They were lousy at unconventional warfare and prevailed thanx to numerical superiority.
Thanks Kush for the link to the Vaidya regiments. About 15-20 years ago the Indian Army and Raksha Mantri floated a trial balloon about the idea of gradually phasing out communal regiments (which in any case are confined to the infantry). The protests poured in from all sides. My dad's friend a Madrasi from Tiruchi who had served with the Punjab Regiment was fuming (in unprintable Punjabi of course) when we met him one evening. The mingling or (mil-jhul) of identities fascinates everyone. The movie industry is one place where this happens that we know about, the armed forces is another place that few of us know about.
Peasant soldiers have been a long part of India's military history (1000s of years?).
I have almost finished reading Kiran Desai's 'The inheritance of loss', which does have a lot of Nepalis/Gorkhas in northern India. Still trying to make my mind up about the book...
I was just going to mention The Inheritance of Loss! In terms of the book, I found the plot a little slow (but I'm OK with that) but the written words magnificent.
Anyway, this is a really wonderful post, Amardeep. I love that I can learn about history of the subcontinent AND lipstick on the same blog. I haven't had the time to read all the comments, but it's proving to be really interesting so far.
"Martial races" theory is one of the many baloneys floated by Brits.. You don't need anything special to train killers.. You can tell motivating stories about nationality / patriotism / God / religion and a little bit of alcohol on the sides would help..
bravo on keeping thread composure! i thought this might devolve into a flame war, but it's been rather calm and invigorating.
shiva, i disagree with some details of what you are saying re: romans, but whatever. read heather's book if you have time, it's a good one!
*yawn*
The Gurkhas - Britain's oldest allies 1997-Dec-4
Gurkha pensions under 'race' scrutiny 2002-Feb-4
Gurkha hopefuls undeterred 2003-Feb-24
Gurkhas make UK pensions demand 2006-May-22
razib,
bravo on keeping thread composure! i thought this might devolve into a flame war, but it's been rather calm and invigorating.
How.. patronizing. Bravo on your ability to remain sober tonight. I'm also highly pleased that you haven't soiled yourself today -- I knew you could do it, I really did! My pride swells with your ability to not defecate in your clothes.
sic, i'm insulted, offended even. educate yourself!
sic semper tyrannis,
you sir exhibit the worst features of the blogosphere! a gentlemen is not something you certainly will ever be called!
yours truly,
c.v. snicker
Well, link Ambedkar deconstructs the "martial races" theory by Brits
Too bad Ambedkar should have become the Prime minister..
I don't know about Gurkhas or Zulus, but Punjabis are definitely a "martial race." Those of you who say otherwise have never met my ex-wife. Or my family. Or...me.
Shiva, I'm going to disagree with the notion that the Romans were only good at "set-piece" warfare. Call it what you want; they kicked some serious booty for quite a while, and they were innovators in the use of combined arms. They were pretty flexible on the battlefield, and that's why they won so often.
And why would anyone be surprised that when India tried to disband the units arranged along ethnic lines? Pride is a powerful force. If you tell one group of people that they're good at fighting, they will believe it. If they fight for you, so much the better. Then their own belief works in their and your favor. Belief is a powerful thing.
Would anyone here disagree that Israel as a state is a powerful nation, and not an adversary to be trifled with? So Jews are great warriors. True or false?
The truth is that practically every race has a great martial tradition. The stories of war are the stories of legend. Anglo-Saxons (Saxons! Good lord!) are a "warrior" race. The British, the French (if you count Asterix and not WWII), the Italians, the Thais, the Filipinos (you gotta be badass if you make the US military invent a higher caliber round and gun to take you out), various African groups, various Indian groups, Russians, Germans, Eskimos, Mexicans, Aregentines, Native Americans, Maoris, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Burmese, and quite a few people who live in South Central LA...hell, even the flippin' Swiss...everyone's got a martial legend or two or twelve or 3,000.
And why shouldn't they? First, there's some truth to it all. They all fought wars, and at least avoided ass-kickage long enough to develop a name for themselves. Second, the pride in their martial prowess served to drive them. Whether it's a belief you inherit from your father or from a colonialist imperial officer, you'll fight a lot harder if you think you're the baddest mofo on the front lines. So yeah, it's disturbing that the British could use this to more readily command troops and rule our peoples, but at the same time, it's human nature to take pride in what you are told you excel at. Especially if it's fighting...that's almost as good as saying you come from a lineage that produces good basketball players.
Or surgeons.
chet snicker,
you sir exhibit the worst features of the blogosphere! a gentlemen is not something you certainly will ever be called!
I think you meant to say "a gentleman certainly is not something you will ever be called" -- what you wrote says the chance that I'll be called a gentleman is below 100%, such as 100% minus epsilon.
razib,
Before you froth at the mouth, maybe you should educate yourself on a parable I assumed you knew already.
I merely illustrated how your proclivity to mention what had not happened was irritating, so I similarly detailed what had not happened in your day. Nothing I said was dishonest or a lie, but as you have found it, it can be annoying nonetheless.
BTW, I found Between the Mosque and the Military if not eye opening at least exotic, haven't seen critical political analyses about Pakistan from Pakistan. Haqqani does talk about the three pillars - Islam, India and American Aid and the perception of India as a factitious entity by their Military leadership. Perhaps the martial race idea does play a part, am yet to meet a Pakistani who calls a spade as one, you hear them all talk about how honest and good military rule has been for them (time and again). A classic case of a martial government romanticizing that idea and subverting religion in support. perhaps there are dissenters, please lets meet.
HM,
There are various books currently available which have been written by recent British authors on the Anglo-Sikh Wars, and which include the historical anecdote I mentioned in post #33.
None of which has anything to do with my previous comment, especially in light of the first section (before my response to Razib) in #33.
Sahej,
Brilliant posts by you, my friend, especially #52 & 60.
Ikram,
Very good point and one which I was going to mention myself. The Khalsa army during Maharajah Ranjit Singh's time was already organised and trained according to European techniques due to the employment of Napoleonic French officers.
Razib,
You've been a little prickly recently buddy, have I accidentally done something to offend you ?
Have you considered that it may often be a combination of the two -- cultural factors within certain groups driving them towards greater prowess on the battlefield and an ability to deploy appropriate strategic & tactical approaches to achieve victory ?
Salil also makes some superb points in post #76.
Regarding the whole "martial race" thing -- As I said before, I don't think this is necessarily true, especially in the case of Sikhs (for the reasons explained previously, along with the fact that a) ancestrally-speaking Sikhs are composed of various different groups, many of which were not traditionally involved in warfare pre-Khalsa, and b) numerically there was a strong Punjabi bias during the formation of the Khalsa in Guru Gobind Singh's time, but it was actually composed of people from all over the Indian subcontinent).
I would say that -- very broadly-speaking -- maybe some groups are predisposed to being more aggressive due to genetic/hormonal/psychological factors, but generally I think that the overall environment that the people live in plays a part in affecting exactly how "warlike" they become -- depending on whether the culture encourages or disapproves of such behaviour. For example, historically you could say that the Japanese were a "martial race", but not so much in modern times. The same analogy would apply to Romans vs modern-day Italians.
So perhaps it would be more accurate to say that cultures are often "martial", rather than the "races" (for want of a better word).
However, in that regard some cultures definitely are more warlike than others, either aggressively or defensively (or both).
Indianoguy posted an excellent link on the News tab recently -- it's a 90-second clip depicting how the most well-known religions have geographically spread over the map of the world, including wars fought in their names. Apart from the fact that it erroneously shows the birth of Krishna as marking the "start of Hinduism", it's quite informative. Check it out here.
(Apologies for the multiple posts)
The Turnip,
That was a legacy of the times before these people adopted Sikhism. The formation of the Khalsa in particular was supposed to eradicate these differences and tendency towards "hereditary" professions; there is supposed to be no formal distinctions between Sikhs in this regard and certainly not the concept of "different kinds of Sikhs".
It was due to aggression towards them within India and, later, from the northwest, along with the teachings of the Sikh Gurus and their efforts to militarise the adherents of the faith, especially the actions of Guru Gobind Singh.
They were supposed to engage in martial training along with their "normal" daily occupations. Ideally, every Sikh is supposed to be a warrior (to some degree or other) along with whatever else they may do for a living, as symbolised by the fact that baptised Sikhs carry a kirpan (ideally it's supposed to be a full-length sword rather than just a small "dagger"). However, the spiritual side is supposed to be dominant, as mentioned previously; Guru Gobind Singh illustrated the point most pertinently when he said that a Sikh should "try to be a saint first before you try to be a soldier".
It's also worth bearing in mind that, technically, there is not meant to be any distinction between male and female Sikhs in this regard. However, for various reasons (some of them obvious), male Sikhs have tended to be more actively involved in martial pursuits than the women, although historically there have also been female Sikh generals (pre-colonial times).
"I never knew Marathas were classified as a Martial race by the British until now!"
I think they were first classified as 'martial race', but were later removed from the list.
I don't think any South Indian group was named 'martial race'. Officers absolutely hated having to serve in the Madras Army, and earnestly tried to get transferred to the northern armies whenever possible.
later they experimented with 'Coorgs', a group from Karnataka, and the 'Mappilas', a muslim group from Kerala, but they found these troops to be ineffective and very hard to control and were later disbanded. these two groups were formally considered 'criminal races' before being recruited into the army. so the consensus remained that south india was not a good army recruiting region.
which is funny though, since in the 1700s the east india company fought most of their wars using 'non-martial races' ..ie. people from tamil nadu and bengal. The 'anglo' side of the anglo-sikh wars was mostly troops from bihar/awadh. Who gave the british the most trouble? Hyder Ali/ Tippu Sultan and their armies of Mysore.
And calling tamils an 'effeminate race' would not explain the tamil tigers.
It's also funny how all the wikipedia entries for the so-called 'martial races' state that
"Martial Race is a designation created by officials of British India to describe "races" (peoples) that were thought to be naturally warlike and aggressive in battle, and to possess qualities like courage, loyalty, self sufficiency, physical strength, resilience, orderliness, hard working, fighting tenacity and military strategy. "
but conveniently fail to mention that the martial races were also characterized by simpleness and slow wits.
racist white rulers saying that your people are "dumb, but fight well and obey orders" is NOT something to go around boasting about.
Rubbish. You do not win battles -- and certainly not protracted wars -- by being "simple" or "slow-witted", unless your strategy consists solely of brute force and/or overwhelming numbers.
the effeminate races are really those who chose not to be the macaca. it is devilishly clever though to emasculate the said people in the eyes of their compatriots by saying - 'o they are girly-men etc.'
enough of that. the reason i came right now -heh- is to remind you that tomorrow is global orgasm day. i would encourage you to go frolic across the intrasepiate divide and make this discussion moot. go out ye and plant some hybrid seed.
Rubbish. You do not win battles -- and certainly not protracted wars -- by being "simple" or "slow-witted", unless your strategy consists solely of brute force and/or overwhelming numbers.
Actually, thats true. The martial races were thought to be 'slow-witted' by the British.
Airavat Singh wrote a long paper on the development of military tactics during the late-Mughal to colonialism period. You can read Part 3 here. It is expert stuff and not meant for a casual read of course. And the keen ones will I am sure track down Parts 1 and 2.
The Indian forces is a great believer in the efficacy of training and as a rule thinks the idea of 'martial races' etc., is bakwas. A deep desire to serve and reasonably good athletic ability is mostly what they look for.
I constantly find it bemusing that, at least based on regular discussions on the subject on Sepia Mutiny, many desis based in the US appear to have more of a colonial hangup than those of us who actually live in Britain. Indians on this side of the Atlantic, at least the majority born in the UK (if not necessarily the parents' generation), do not use the British imperial period as their main points of reference regarding self-identity. Sikhs and other groups (rightly or wrongly) identity with more warlike characteristics primarily because of events before the colonial period.
Whether the Brits of the time did or did not identify certain groups as "martial races" is immaterial. I fail to see the constructive logic behind reviving a topic that was superceded by historical events 60 years ago; constantly revisiting archaic colonial issues and complaining about them, whilst providing an interesting talking-point in some ways, is not only like flogging a dead horse, it is like digging up the animal from its grave, using a skilled veterinarian to resuscitate it, and then flogging it to death all over again. It doesn't exactly add value to modern-day race relations and, in fact, adds further fuel to the fire in the cases of those who still carry a chip on their shoulder against modern-day white Brits -- despite the fact that the vast majority of "old colonial hands" in the UK are dead if not extremely old, and there are huge numbers of white people here who have grown up surrounded by Indians and, either socially or through professional experiences, are on very good terms indeed with their British desi counterparts. People like Niall Ferguson are not exactly representative of what very large numbers of English people are like these days, either in their stance towards Indians (especially those born & brought up in the UK) or in their views about the imperial period as a whole.
Correspondingly:
That "badge" existed centuries before the British had any notable influence on the subcontinent.
Someone said they are glad this thread has not become a flame war, I disagree.
What I really want to see is a bust up over who was better -- The Romans or the Germanic tribes in the battle of Underholzer Schlegwegstein in 9 AD -- and more importantly, who had bigger swords? General Maximus Livia Plurabelle of Rome or Schwanzlucher, the barbarian chieftan who unified the hairy tribes of Germany?
And whose tactics were better and which one threw more stones, bearing in mind climate and exogenous factors like how many were short sighted and so couldnt throw a spear straight?
Enough with the niceties, let's get all cards on the table.
I constantly find it bemusing that, at least based on regular discussions on the subject on Sepia Mutiny, many desis based in the US appear to have more of a colonial hangup than those of us who actually live in Britain.
If someone continually harped on it, brought it up in utterly irrelevant situations, then yes, I would agree that the perpetrator manifested symptoms of a hangup, but its entirely appropriate to bring this up in an entry about the martial races.
I encourage you to browse through "Castes of Mind" on Amazon.com, to be found here.
George MacMunn, the army historian and martial race "theorist", who I cited to above, wrote the Martial Races of India in 1933. Dirks says this about that book:
"MacMunn paised the martial races at the expense of the majority of other Indians, though it is clear his praise is mixed, given his clear avowal of the colonial assumption that the martial races were not of marked intelligence. In any case, intelligence in the colonized only bred disloyalty and inscrutability, something about which MacMunn was unembarassed to be contemptuous even in the declining days of the Raj."
Risible,
Fine. So what ? He wrote that book over 70 years ago and is presumably long deceased. In fact that "assumption" has long been superceded in Britain, considering that a disproportionate number of UK-based Indians are indeed from the so-called "martial races" and are renowned here for academic performance superior to that of white Brits and also for their notable professional & financial success.
What old colonial hands lik