British praising the physical qualities of Bihari Bhumihars and Rajputs

[Aepsilons]

And regarding selflessness. Do you know of Raja Harsha(Harsha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi buddy,

This is the first time i ever heard of Emperor Harsha, what an impressive life story , and his role in expanding not only religion (buddhism) but also literature ! Impressive. You know, for me, what makes a great leader is not just the military campaigns he or she may lead or promulgate, but the manner in how he or she rules the people. The promotion and cultivation of civilization and culture, all of which are intangible aspects of a nation that will live on after said ruler.

Its just so amazing to read about the different types of dynasties in the Subcontinent , from those in the South, the East, the West. The warfare between the princely states is very smilar to Japan's own Sengoku Jidai, even China's own Warring States Period.

See, when we study history, we tend to realize how very similar we are to each other.

TT ...you have such knowledge of our subcontinent...and your posts are so polite and graceful....its bcz of guys like you...i joined this forum.

I am fascinated with many things about India and the whole of South Asia. Culture, language, history, people. Just an amazing place !

 

[Kabira]

British found bihari rajputs very short and narrow shouldered, obviously still taller on average then bihari lower castes. Seem like British though bhumihar rajputs no longer needed special treatment because dalits were not far behind.

Bhumihars got pissed and saw their status being lowered, so they rebelled.

 

[Gauss]

So what do we have here. A high caste indian being happy about a british officier, whose father was probably a stable boy, considering high caste subjects of his a better breed of canon fodder.
Slave mentality still going strong.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You feel pride in the appraisal of the Imperial colonizer?

A divide and conquer ruse , my friend. Something the British were excellent at doing.

What are you referring to, as divide and conquer? I suspect that you are not aware of the timelines involved here. Unless, of course, you are referring to the basic policy of using Indian troops to fight Indian wars.

So what do we have here. A high caste indian being happy about a british officier, whose father was probably a stable boy, considering high caste subjects of his a better breed of canon fodder.
Slave mentality still going strong.

Most British officers - not all - were members of the middle class. It is a trope that the British middle classes in Victorian Britain found their vocation with the expansion of the empire.

 

[Aepsilons]

What are you referring to, as divide and conquer? I suspect that you are not aware of the timelines involved here. Unless, of course, you are referring to the basic policy of using Indian troops to fight Indian wars.

The emphasis is on the latter point you premised, Sir.

Regards.

 

[Koovie]

This whole "martial race" BS is nothing more than colonial divide and rule propaganda and 19th century pseudo science...

Anyone believing in this crap is a testimony to failed education

 

[Joe Shearer]

The emphasis is on the latter point you premised, Sir.

Regards.

In that case, it was an enormously mistaken point.

First, as far as I am concerned, these are the remarks of professional, seasoned military personnel, and there is no need to consider that their views were coloured by the relative political status of either party, the evaluator and those they evaluated.

Second, the British policy of divide and conquer was quite irrelevant to the situation. The people in question that you read about have been mercenaries from a millennium before that. I am writing this without access to my personal library, but when I get the opportunity, perhaps you might like to read the original historical analyses by those of the Dutch school who have worked extensively in these areas. Far from it being the doings of the British, therefore, the military services of the people in question were divided among different military protagonists as a matter of tradition. The difference that the British made was to insist that service with them would preclude service with their opponents; earlier tradition had been for the soldiers to sell their services at the beginning of a military season, and they would as readily fight on side as on another.

The divide and rule part of British relations with Indian states can be detected, but not in what you have mentioned. The divide and rule part of it lay in their playing one Indian power against another; the Marathas against the Nizam, the Nizam against the Marathas; the King of Oudh against the Rohillas, or against Maratha arms of the greater Maratha confederacy, or a dozen other cases. Incidentally, they were at the receiving end of coalitions of other powers, including European powers, on a number of occasions.

 

[Aepsilons]

I am writing this without access to my personal library, but when I get the opportunity, perhaps you might like to read the original historical analyses by those of the Dutch school who have worked extensively in these areas. Far from it being the doings of the British, therefore, the military services of the people in question were divided among different military protagonists as a matter of tradition. The difference that the British made was to insist that service with them would preclude service with their opponents; earlier tradition had been for the soldiers to sell their services at the beginning of a military season, and they would as readily fight on side as on another.

The divide and rule part of British relations with Indian states can be detected, but not in what you have mentioned. The divide and rule part of it lay in their playing one Indian power against another; the Marathas against the Nizam, the Nizam against the Marathas; the King of Oudh against the Rohillas, or against Maratha arms of the greater Maratha confederacy, or a dozen other cases. Incidentally, they were at the receiving end of coalitions of other powers, including European powers, on a number of occasions.

Excellent input, Sir, and yes, I would be more than honored to read more on the original analyses, primary or secondary sources would be highly appreciated.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Excellent input, Sir, and yes, I would be more than honored to read more on the original analyses, primary or secondary sources would be highly appreciated.

As soon as I can get my hands on the books.

Not really Punjabis,Pashtuns,Gurkhas wernt considered indians .. The Pubjabis n Pashtuns rather enjoyed it .. Go then it was payback to the people who helped the British occupy them .. The Gurkhas again were mercs who held the "hindustanis" in contempt .. There was no long lost love ... That's why the British started a policy of appeasement of these groups and started heavily recruiting them an by the First World War the frontiermen (Punjab,KPK etc ..) were a majority (I dare say over 70-80?%)in the british army .



The cancelling of overseas allowance,recruitment of low castes,disciplinary issues,animal fat laced ammo, etc).

One of the more clueless posts in a completely unrewarding thread.

The Gorkhas, far from being mercenaries who held the "hindustanis" in contempt, kept ample space for Chhetris and other apparent migrants of Rajput stock, as well as both Hindu priests (Upadhyayas) and Buddhist priests, and finally, Sresthis, who themselves, within their own political system, lorded it over the Gurung, Magar, Tamang complexes of mixed Indo-Tibetan stock.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

As soon as I can get my hands on the books.



One of the more clueless posts in a completely unrewarding thread.

The Gorkhas, far from being mercenaries who held the "hindustanis" in contempt, kept ample space for Chhetris and other apparent migrants of Rajput stock, as well as both Hindu priests (Upadhyayas) and Buddhist priests, and finally, Sresthis, who themselves, within their own political system, lorded it over the Gurung, Magar, Tamang complexes of mixed Indo-Tibetan stock.

And yet they held hindustanis in comtempt ? (which is a fact).. also dont gurkhas themselve descendants of bapa rawal who was a rajput?

 

[Joe Shearer]

As soon as I can get my hands on the books.



One of the more clueless posts in a completely unrewarding thread.

The Gorkhas, far from being mercenaries who held the "hindustanis" in contempt, kept ample space for Chhetris and other apparent migrants of Rajput stock, as well as both Hindu priests (Upadhyayas) and Buddhist priests, and finally, Sresthis, who themselves, within their own political system, lorded it over the Gurung, Magar, Tamang complexes of mixed Indo-Tibetan stock.

And yet they held hindustanis in comtempt ? (which is a fact).. also dont gurkhas themselve descendants of bapa rawal who was a rajput?

A fact? Because you say so? After reading how they themselves thought that their upper castes were Hindustani migrants? And descendants of Rajputs, as you yourself point out? Unless, that is, by some legerdemain, Rajputs now cease to be Hindustanis.

I shall not even bother to contradict the balderdash about which else were not considered 'Indian'.

And yet they held hindustanis in comtempt ? (which is a fact).. also dont gurkhas themselve descendants of bapa rawal who was a rajput?

Just to drive the point home further, you might like to investigate the name Gorkha itself, and trace it to its monastic origins in the eastern UP (as Hindustani as it gets).

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

A fact? Because you say so? After reading how they themselves thought that their upper castes were Hindustani migrants? And descendants of Rajputs, as you yourself point out? Unless, that is, by some legerdemain, Rajputs now cease to be Hindustanis.

I shall not even bother to contradict the balderdash about which else were not considered 'Indian'.

Aparently yes.. atleast that what well researched books on 1857 sepoy mutiny say so..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Aparently yes.. atleast that what well researched books on 1857 sepoy mutiny say so..

Well-researched, and with such conclusions? Curious research. I wonder if you are reading the original British accounts still.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Well-researched, and with such conclusions? Curious research. I wonder if you are reading the original British accounts still.

Yes.. im reading british accounts.. with provide a much better account than indian books.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes.. im reading british accounts.. with provide a much better account than indian books.

It's obvious from the superficial treatment and complete lack of knowledge of detailed circumstance, not to mention what emerges as the desperate need to reassure themselves that some parts of the Indian populace actually liked them.

This, like the rest of the martial races myth, was built on the foundation of victory in battle by the non-martial races over the precise martial races that were so lauded after 1857.

Hilarious.