The Gorkhas, Sikhs, Punjabi Musalmans and the Martial Race Theory

The martial race theory was a concept developed during the British colonial era in India. It posited that certain ethnic or racial groups possessed inherent martial qualities, making them naturally superior in warfare compared to others. The theory was primarily used to justify British recruitment policies and the organization of the Indian Army.

According to the martial race theory, certain groups were believed to possess qualities such as bravery, physical strength, loyalty, and martial skills that made them ideal for military service. These groups were often portrayed as "warrior races" or "martial races" by the British authorities. The theory suggested that these groups had a long history of martial traditions and had inherited innate characteristics that made them excel in battle.

It is important to note that the martial race theory was a social construct imposed by the British colonial rulers rather than a scientifically or objectively proven concept. The categorization of ethnic or racial groups as martial races was based on subjective and biased criteria. The British used these categorizations to recruit soldiers from specific communities and regions, as they believed these groups would be more loyal and effective in maintaining colonial control.

The following are a few examples of groups that were commonly considered as martial races under the theory:

1. Sikhs: Sikhs were often regarded as the epitome of a martial race. The British believed that their religious values and warrior traditions made them fearless, disciplined, and excellent soldiers. Sikhs served in significant numbers in the British Indian Army and were known for their bravery and loyalty.

2. 
   

3. Gurkhas: The Gurkhas are a Nepalese ethnic group known for their military prowess. The British considered them to be natural warriors and recruited them into the British Indian Army. Gurkha soldiers gained a reputation for their courage, loyalty, and exceptional combat skills.

4. 
   

5. Pathans/Pashtuns: Pathans, an ethnic group primarily inhabiting the region of present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, were also considered martial races. The British perceived them as fiercely independent and skilled warriors. Pathans were recruited into the British Indian Army and played a significant role in maintaining colonial control.

6. 
   

7. Punjabis: Punjabis, especially the Jat and Dogra communities, were often included in the martial race category. The British believed that their physical strength, courage, and agricultural background made them suitable for military service. Punjabis constituted a significant portion of the British Indian Army.

It is important to recognize that the martial race theory was a product of colonial attitudes and policies, which aimed to maintain and justify British control over India. The theory perpetuated stereotypes and reinforced divisions among various ethnic and racial groups. It also disregarded the diverse skills and contributions of individuals outside the selected martial races. Over time, the concept lost credibility and faced criticism for its inherent biases and discriminatory nature.

---

The martial race theory gradually lost credulity due to several factors:

1. Ineffectiveness in combat: Despite the belief that certain groups were inherently superior in warfare, the actual performance of soldiers from the so-called martial races did not consistently match the expectations. There were instances where soldiers from non-martial race groups displayed equal or superior military capabilities and bravery in battles. The theory's failure to consistently produce outstanding military results undermined its credibility.

2. 
   

3. World Wars and changing warfare: The two World Wars played a significant role in challenging the martial race theory. The large-scale conflicts demonstrated that success in warfare relied on various factors such as technology, strategy, leadership, and training, rather than inherent racial or ethnic characteristics. The industrialized nature of warfare and the introduction of modern weapons diminished the significance of traditional martial skills.

4. 
   

5. Rising nationalism and identity movements: As nationalist movements gained momentum in India, different ethnic and regional groups began asserting their identities and demanding equal treatment. The martial race theory was seen as a tool of colonial control that perpetuated divisions and discriminated against non-designated groups. Critics argued that bravery and martial abilities were not exclusive to specific races or ethnicities, but rather individual qualities.

6. 
   

7. Social and political changes: The post-colonial era witnessed significant social and political transformations. Ideas of equality, human rights, and inclusivity became more prominent. The martial race theory clashed with these evolving values and was increasingly viewed as discriminatory and unjust. Efforts to build inclusive and diverse societies led to a rejection of theories that perpetuated hierarchical divisions based on racial or ethnic characteristics.

8. 
   

9. Academic and intellectual criticism: Scholars and intellectuals criticized the martial race theory for its lack of empirical evidence, arbitrary categorizations, and reliance on stereotypes. They highlighted the role of social, economic, and historical factors in shaping military prowess, rather than inherent racial or ethnic qualities. The theory was seen as a product of colonial propaganda rather than a valid scientific concept.

Overall, the martial race theory lost credulity due to its inability to consistently demonstrate superior military performance, the changing nature of warfare, the rise of nationalist and identity movements, evolving social and political values, and academic criticisms. The rejection of the theory contributed to the dismantling of discriminatory policies and a broader understanding that military abilities and bravery are not exclusive to particular racial or ethnic groups.

 

Mutiny and Putin: A Historical Narrative

 

The poppy has become a symbol of racism – I have never worn one, and now I never will

Robert Fisk in The Independent


Yes, the boys and girls of the BBC and ITV, and all our lively media and sports personalities and politicians, are at it again. They’re flaunting their silly poppies once more to show their super-correctness in the face of history, as ignorant or forgetful as ever that their tired fashion accessory was inspired by a poem which urged the soldiers of the Great War of 1914-18 to go on killing and slaughtering.

But that’s no longer quite the point, for I fear there are now darker reasons why these TV chumps and their MP interviewees sport their red compassion badges on their clothes.

For who are they commemorating? The dead of Sarajevo? Of Srebrenica? Of Aleppo? Nope. The television bumpkins only shed their crocodile tears for the dead of First and Second World Wars, who were (save for a colonial war or two) the last generation of Brits to get the chop before the new age of “we-bomb-you-die” technology ensured that their chaps – brown-eyed, for the most part, often Muslims, usually dark skinned – got blown to bits while our chaps flew safely home to the mess for breakfast.

Yes, I rage against the poppy disgrace every year. And yes, my father – 12th Battalion The King’s Liverpool Regiment, Third Battle of the Somme, the liberation of burning Cambrai 1918 – finally abandoned the poppy charade when he learned of the hypocrisy and lies behind the war in which he fought. His schoolboy son followed his father’s example and never wore his wretched Flanders flower again.

Oddly, the dunderheads who are taking Britain out of the European Union on a carpet of equally deceitful lies – and I include Theresa May and her buffoonerie of ministers – are guilty of even greater hypocrisy than the TV presenters whose poppies, for just a few days a year, take over the function of studio make-up artists (poppies distracting viewers from the slabs of paste on their TV faces). For the fields of Flanders, the real mud and faeces and blood which those vile poppies are supposed to symbolise, showed just how European our dead generations were.
British soldiers went off to fight and die in their tens of thousands for little Catholic Belgium, today the seat of the EU where Nigel Farage disgraced his country by telling the grandchildren of those we went to fight for that they’d never done a day’s work in their lives. In France, British (and, of course, Irish) soldiers bled to death in even greater Golgothas – 20,000 alone on the first day of the Somme in 1916 – to save the nation which we are now throwing out of our shiny new insular lives.

The Entente Cordiale which sent my father to France is now trash beneath the high heels of Theresa May – yet this wretched woman dares to wear a poppy.

When Poles fought and died alongside British pilots in the 1940 Battle of Britain to save us from Nazi Germany, we idolised them, lionised them, wrote about their exploits in the RAF, filmed them, fell in love with them. For them, too, we pretend to wear the poppy. But now the poppy wearers want to throw the children of those brave men out of Britain. Shame is the only word I can find to describe our betrayal.

And perhaps I sniff something equally pernicious among the studio boys and girls. On Britain’s international television channels, Christmas was long ago banned (save for news stories on the Pope). There are no Christmas trees any more beside the presenters’ desks, not a sprig of holly. For we live in a multicultural society, in which such manifestations might be offensive to other “cultures” (I use that word advisedly, for culture to me means Beethoven and the poet Hafiz and Monet).

And for the same reason, our international screens never show the slightest clue of Eid festivities (save again for news stories) lest this, too, offend another “culture”. Yet the poppy just manages to sneak onto the screen of BBC World; it is permissable, you see, the very last symbol that “our” dead remain more precious than the millions of human beings we have killed, in the Middle East for example, for whom we wear no token of remembrance. Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara will be wearing his poppy this week – but not for those he liquidated in his grotesque invasion of Iraq.

And in this sense, I fear that the wearing of the poppy has become a symbol of racism. In his old-fashioned way (and he read a lot about post-imperial history) I think my father, who was 93 when he died, understood this.

His example was one of great courage. He fought for his country and then, unafraid, he threw his poppy away. Television celebrities do not have to fight for their country – yet they do not even have the guts to break this fake conformity and toss their sordid poppies in the office wastepaper bin.

Soldiers as teachers why not as doctors?

by Archie Bland in The Independent

In its wisdom, the Government has decided to give members of the Armed Forces a fast-track route into teaching. The plan, long in the making, will give former troops the chance to teach even if they don’t hold a university degree, and I'm all for it, but I don’t think the Government is going far enough. Yes, we need a military ethos in our schools. But what about our hospitals?

Think about it. Schools will benefit from the military values of leadership, discipline, motivation and teamwork, as David Laws and Michael Govehave argued, but you know where else those values would be useful? The chaotic world of hospitals! OK, so not all soldiers have an education in medicine. But they have the right values. And the right values are much more important than the right qualifications.

The image of infantrymen moving from the military’s theatres of operations to the hospitals’ operating theatres is not the only one available to demonstrate how absurd this proposal is, how insulting to teachers and children, and how profoundly anti-intellectual, with its contempt for the idea that knowing about things might be a necessary prerequisite for teaching them. And these other modest proposals make still clearer the rationale for the Government’s pursuit of this particular wheeze. Imagine, for instance, that teachers were to be fast-tracked into combat units because of their capacities to work hard, manage people and deal with stressful situations. Or try to picture charity workers getting teaching jobs without a degree because a philanthropic ethos might be just as worth instilling in our children as a military one. Any such suggestion would be greeted, rightly, with puzzlement.

And yet with the military it’s different. This plan is based on an American example – with the difference that in America, 99 per cent of participants already had a degree – and in recent years we’ve been edging closer to the American model of unthinking glorification of our Armed Forces. When soldiers and sailors behave well, their exploits are used as evidence of military nobility. When they behave badly, they are seen as bad apples, and we rarely ask whether their wrongdoing might in fact be the product of a poisoned culture.

I suppose this squeamishness is understandable: ever since the invasion of Afghanistan, we’ve been engaged in brutal conflicts that cost most of us very little, and a few of us a great deal. We owe those few. But squeamishness, and a heavy debt, are not a sensible basis for policy making. So, although it feels frankly treacherous to say so, here goes: a military culture is appropriate for the front line, but not for the classroom, where independent thinking should be considered essential. Soldiers might be brave, and well-disciplined, but if they aren’t well qualified that probably won’t be enough to make them good educators. Teachers are doing something really difficult. And children? Children are not the enemy.