Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population?
These data reveal in a striking manner that the fighting forces available for the defence of India mostly come from areas which are to be included in Pakistan. From this it may be argued, that without Pakistan, Hindustan cannot defend itself.
The facts brought out by the Simon Commission are, of course, beyond question. But they cannot be made the basis of a conclusion, such as is suggested by the Simon Commission, namely, that only Pakistan can produce soldiers and that Hindustan cannot. That such a conclusion is quite untenable will be seen from the following considerations.
In the first place, what is regarded by the Simon Commission as something peculiar to India is not quite so peculiar. What appears to be peculiar is not due to any inherent defect in the people. The peculiarity arises because of the policy of recruitment followed by the British Government for years past. The official explanation of this predominance in the Indian Army of the men of the North-West is that they belong to the Martial Classes. But Mr. Chaudhari 24 [f.24] has demonstrated, by unimpeachable data, that this explanation is far from being true. He has shown that the predominance in the Army of the men of the North-West took place as early as the Mutiny of 1857, some 20 years before the theory of Martial and Non-martial Classes was projected in an indistinct form for the first
time in 1879 by the Special Army Committee 25[f.25] appointed in that year, and that their predominance had nothing to do with their alleged fighting qualities but was due to the fact, that they helped the British to suppress the Mutiny in which the Bengal Army was so completely involved. To quote Mr. Chaudhari :
" The pre-Mutiny army of Bengal was essentially a Brahmin and Kshalriya army of the Ganges basin. All the three Presidency Armies of those days, as we have slated in the first part of this article, were in a sense quite representative of the military potentialities of the areas to which they belonged, though none of them could, strictly speaking, be correctly described as national armies of the provinces concerned, as there was no attempt to draw upon any but the traditional martial elements of the population. But they all got their recruits mainly from their
natural areas of recruitment, viz., the Madras Army from the Tamil and Telugu countries, the Bombay Army from Western India, and the Bengal Army from Bihar and U. P. and to a very limited extent from Bengal. There was no official restriction on the enrolment of men of any particular tribe or caste or region, provided they were otherwise eligible. Leaving aside for the moment the practice of the Bombay and the Madras Armies, the only exception to this general rule in the Bengal Army was that which applied to the Punjabis and Sikhs, who, inspite of their magnificent military traditions, were not given a fair representation in the Army of Northern India. Their recruitment, on the contrary, was placed under severe restrictions by an order of the Government, which laid down that ' the number of Punjabis in a regiment is never to exceed 200, nor are more than 100 of them lobe Sikhs'. It was only the revolt of the Hindustani regiments of the Bengal Army that gave an opportunity to the Punjabis to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the British authorities. Till then, they remained suspect and under a ban, and the Bengal Army on the eve of the Mutiny was mainly recruited from Oudh, North and South Bihar, especially the latter, principally Shahabad and Bhojpur, the Doab of the Ganges and Jumna and Rohilkhund. The soldiers recruited from these areas were mostly high-caste men. Brahmins of all denominations, Kshatriyas, Rajputs and
Ahirs. The average proportion in which these classes were enrolled in a regiment was: (1) Brahmin 7/24, (2) Rajputs 1/4, (3) Inferior Hindus 1/6, (4) Musalmans 1/6, (5) Punjabis 1/8.
"To this army, the area which now-a-days furnishes the greatest number of soldiers—the Punjab, Nepal, N.-W. F. Province, the hill tracts of Kumaon and Garhwal, Rajpulana,—furnished very few recruits or none at all. There was practical exclusion in it of all the famous fighting castes of India,—Sikhs, Gurkhas, Punjabi Musalmans, Dogras, Jats, Pathans, Garhwalis, Rajpulana Rajpuls, Kumaonis, Gujars, all the tribes and seels, in fact, which are looked upon today as atower of strength of the Indian Army. A single year and a single rebellion was, however, to change all this. The Mutiny, which broke out in 1857, blew up the old Bengal Army and brought into existence a Punjabized and barbarized army, resembling the Indian Army of today in broad lines and general proportions of its
composition.
" The gaps created by the revolt of the Hindustani regiments (of the Bengal Army) were at once filled up by Sikhs and other Punjabis, and hillmen eager for revenge and for the loot of the cities of Hindustan. They had all been conquered and subjugated by the British with the help of the Hindustani soldiers, and in their ignorance, they regarded the Hindustanis, rather the handful of British, as their real enemies. This enmity was magnificently exploited by the British authorities in suppressing the Mutiny. When the news of the enlistment of Gurkhas reached
Lord Dalhousie in England he expressed great satisfaction and wrote to a friend: ' Against the Oudh Sepoys they may confidently be expected to fight like devils'. And after the Mutiny, General Mansfield, the Chief of the Staff of the Indian Army, wrote about the Sikhs: ' It was not because they loved us, but because they hated Hindustan and haled the Bengal Army that the Sikhs had flocked to our standard instead of seeking the opportunity to strike again for their freedom. They wanted to revenge themselves and to gain riches by the plunder of Hindustani cities. They
were not attracted by mere daily pay, it was rather the prospect of wholesale plunder and stamping on the heads of their enemies. In short, we turned to profit the esprit de corps of the old Khalsa Army of Ranjit Singh, in the manner which for a time would most effectually bind the Sikhs to us as long as the active service against their old enemies may last ".
" The relations thus established were in fact to last much longer. The services rendered by the Sikhs and Gurkhas during the Mutiny were not forgotten and henceforward the Punjab and Nepal had the place of honour in the Indian
Army."
That Mr. Chaudhari is right when he says that it was the Mutiny of 1857 which was the real cause of the preponderance in the Indian Army of the men of the North-West is beyond the possibility of doubt. Equally incontrovertible is the view of Mr. Chaudhari that this preponderance of the men of the North-West is not due to
their native superiority in fighting qualities, as the same is amply borne out by the figures which he has collected, showing the changes in the composition of the Indian Infantry before and after the Mutiny.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 02:40 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 03:04 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 03:21 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 03:28 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 07:37 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 07:50 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 08:14 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-15-2003, 08:51 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-17-2003, 03:09 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-18-2003, 03:55 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-19-2003, 12:12 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-19-2003, 07:24 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-22-2003, 03:28 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-22-2003, 04:02 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-22-2003, 06:31 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-22-2003, 10:12 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-23-2003, 10:57 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-23-2003, 11:36 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 12:28 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 04:42 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 04:46 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 05:10 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 08:22 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 09:12 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 10:16 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 10:31 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 10:36 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 10:56 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:01 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:04 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:07 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:15 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:21 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:25 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:29 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-30-2003, 11:30 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 01:44 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 02:15 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 03:51 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 05:38 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-01-2004, 04:08 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-01-2004, 04:03 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 01:14 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 03:34 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 04:43 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 06:13 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 07:32 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-21-2004, 03:42 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-21-2004, 04:18 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-21-2004, 04:22 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 03:29 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 05:19 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 06:13 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 06:24 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 06:55 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 06:15 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 06:20 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 02-02-2004, 05:10 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 02-02-2004, 06:57 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by G.Subramaniam - 04-10-2004, 05:40 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-11-2004, 04:21 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-30-2004, 03:09 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-30-2004, 03:22 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 03-02-2005, 06:21 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 08-25-2005, 02:24 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-02-2007, 10:48 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-17-2008, 02:18 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 02:25 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-02-2004, 05:23 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)