The British Martial Race Theory

[Alby]

drives UBER in US/UK and sings of marshall race on twitter.
BTW this punjabi heritage craze of porkies and sikhs will eventually become a headache for us.

Its not only Sikhs who glorifies themselves of their martial race.Jats Rajputs all call themselves martial race .But kill ratios of them in battles from historical era doesn’t backs it up. I know many of you guys will be furious but its the fact.There is nothing like martial race,Gorkhas Sikhs Jats Rajputs all had their fare share of defeats.
Despite getting freedom in 1947 we are still believing in martial race theory and superiority of us over Chinese and believes china still uses Human wave tactics using peasants armed with SKS

 

[Tier 1 Patriot]

Its not only Sikhs who glorifies themselves of their martial race.Jats Rajputs all call themselves martial race .But kill ratios of them in battles from historical era doesn’t backs it up. I know many of you guys will be furious but its the fact.There is nothing like martial race,Gorkhas Sikhs Jats Rajputs all had their fare share of defeats.
Despite getting freedom in 1947 we are still believing in martial race theory and superiority of us over Chinese and believes china still uses Human wave tactics using peasants armed with SKS

Martial race doesn't mean you can't becdefeated it's just a criteria to get strong men into the British army who have fighting history right man for the right job

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Martial race doesn't mean you can't becdefeated it's just a criteria to get strong men into the British army who have fighting history right man for the right job

The British thing was after 1857 revolt when Bengalis revolted more than anyone else.

Hence, after the revolt only those regiments were kept which were obedient.

I dont know about martial vs non martial race record bcoz entire Indian Army is regimented around Martial race except maybe Grenadiers and Mech Infantry who i dont think have a better record than Gurkhas or Kumaonis.

 

[Bleh]

Its not only Sikhs who glorifies themselves of their martial race.Jats Rajputs all call themselves martial race .But kill ratios of them in battles from historical era doesn’t backs it up. I know many of you guys will be furious but its the fact.There is nothing like martial race,Gorkhas Sikhs Jats Rajputs all had their fare share of defeats.
Despite getting freedom in 1947 we are still believing in martial race theory and superiority of us over Chinese and believes china still uses Human wave tactics using peasants armed with SKS

Martial race is not a myth...

It was specifically tailored to accommodate the races that DIDN'T rebel during 1857. It's not based on courage or warlike-ness but obedience to sarkar malik. And it worked perfectly. Since Indians are more "unruly" than the others. Dogras or Gurkhas wouldn't hesitate to machine-gun unarmed Indian protesters on a flick of a finger by the white masters.

21 Sikhs didn't face of 10k Pashtuns in fucking Afghanistan for their country. They stood & died at their post because their masters ordered them so. That's the sort of mercenary soldiers ever master wants!

 

[Blademaster]

Martial race is not a myth...

It was specifically tailored to accommodate the races that DIDN'T rebel during 1857. It's not based on courage or warlike-ness but obedience to sarkar malik. And it worked perfectly. Since Indians are more "unruly" than the others. Dogras or Gurkhas wouldn't hesitate to machine-gun unarmed Indian protesters on a flick of a finger by the white masters.

21 Sikhs didn't face of 10k Pashtuns in fucking Afghanistan for their country. They stood & died at their post because their masters ordered them so. That's the sort of mercenary soldiers ever master wants!

That is the biggest thing most Indians don't realize about the truth of British occupation. At the height of occupation, Britain never had more than 57k British soldiers, officers, bureaucrats, leaders, etc. in India controlling a population of over 300 million people. British only occupied India because we let them. Never forget that.

 

[rkhanna]

That is the biggest thing most Indians don't realize about the truth of British occupation. At the height of occupation, Britain never had more than 57k British soldiers, officers, bureaucrats, leaders, etc. in India controlling a population of over 300 million people. British only occupied India because we let them. Never forget that.

1) You have a very poor/simplistic understanding of what went down over 300 years in the Subcontinent.
2) There was no 'We' - the 'We' came only in the mid/late 1800s/early 1900s - and it was Ironically mainly because the British Crown replaced the East India Company with which came Fanatic Christian Missionaries - the "Unity" in India was in many ways a derivative of that push - the 1857 Mutiny was not anti british but more anti Christian - but became a focal foundation stone for national unity (in bits and pieces)
3) We still dont have ONE singular Idea of National Unity today (and IMO - there will never be)
4) Treating Historical Subcontinent as one entity (i.e India) is a fallacy of though proccess - we were more like Europe

 

[Alby]

Martial race is not a myth...

It was specifically tailored to accommodate the races that DIDN'T rebel during 1857. It's not based on courage or warlike-ness but obedience to sarkar malik. And it worked perfectly. Since Indians are more "unruly" than the others. Dogras or Gurkhas wouldn't hesitate to machine-gun unarmed Indian protesters on a flick of a finger by the white masters.

21 Sikhs didn't face of 10k Pashtuns in fucking Afghanistan for their country. They stood & died at their post because their masters ordered them so. That's the sort of mercenary soldiers ever master wants!

There was no concept of India back then , had the Indian kings ordered the soldiers to kill some unarmed men they eould have simply done the same otherwise their heads would be on the roll. For the common man (the shudras and avrnas) whether it was British or Indian kings everyone was same.

 

[BABU BHAIYAA]

There was no concept of India back then , had the Indian kings ordered the soldiers to kill some unarmed men they eould have simply done the same otherwise their heads would be on the roll. For the common man (the shudras and avrnas) whether it was British or Indian kings everyone was same.

Ohh really lol then why colombus and vasco da Gama were in search of India ???
Why there is gazwa e hind concept in hadiths written back then 1400 years ago ??
And can you mention some of genocide done by Indian kings ?? So my knowledge can increase
And can you describe similarities between Indian kings and Britishers

 

[BABU BHAIYAA]

1) You have a very poor/simplistic understanding of what went down over 300 years in the Subcontinent.
2) There was no 'We' - the 'We' came only in the mid/late 1800s/early 1900s - and it was Ironically mainly because the British Crown replaced the East India Company with which came Fanatic Christian Missionaries - the "Unity" in India was in many ways a derivative of that push - the 1857 Mutiny was not anti british but more anti Christian - but became a focal foundation stone for national unity (in bits and pieces)
3) We still dont have ONE singular Idea of National Unity today (and IMO - there will never be)
4) Treating Historical Subcontinent as one entity (i.e India) is a fallacy of though proccess - we were more like Europe

Go to hell
Please limit your this leftist propaganda to your campus
When there is a threat from outside Indian kings faught United
Example first islamic invasion happened in around 712BC
THEN 2nd in around 1192 do you know what happened in these 400 years
Bappa Rawal ji , lakshditya , pratihars etc faught United to protect India .
There is always idea of BHARAT in scriptures, puranas and if you read Mahabharata you are not boasting here . So sad ,
All revolutionaries faught with the idea of BHARAT mata , no one can propagate the idea of we , it always in the genes of the true sons of Bharat mata , btw if we consider your timeline 1800 -1900 that idea of we came , the indian education system was in hands of Britishers, so by introducing the idea of we they were supposed to dig their own grave no one that stupid.
And afterall we indians admits that
Yes we ruled by Britishers not because of they were better then us because their war policy, technology, tactics and belief on science are better then us

 

[Jedi Operator]

Ohh really lol then why colombus and vasco da Gama were in search of India ???
Why there is gazwa e hind concept in hadiths written back then 1400 years ago ??
And can you mention some of genocide done by Indian kings ?? So my knowledge can increase
And can you describe similarities between Indian kings and Britishers

1. Didn’t mean there was a unified “India” like you see today—just a bunch of kingdoms, trading ports, and spice routes which they were looking for
2. The “Ghazwa-e-Hind” idea was more of an idea of conquest, not a united place. Back then, it was just a bunch of dynasties and tribes with some shared cultural threads, but no single “India” under one banner.
3. The concept of “genocide” didn’t exist like it does today. Ancient wars were savage, but usually over land or power—not wiping out people just for who they were. Go and see a Sri Lankan textbook on history, they describe the cholas the same way we describe Mughals or Sultans, much of the Tamil hatred comes from there. But as for a genocide, yes we did it....watch Odd Compass's video on Ashoka
4. The British were in it for total control, baby—money and power over every single person. Indian kings in those times? They ruled their land, had local loyalty. They were easily brought off or bargained by the British.

The idea of India as a cultural place existed but not as a nation state....nation states are fairly new and India is no different

 

[rkhanna]

Ohh really lol then why colombus and vasco da Gama were in search of India ???
Why there is gazwa e hind concept in hadiths written back then 1400 years ago ??
And can you mention some of genocide done by Indian kings ?? So my knowledge can increase
And can you describe similarities between Indian kings and Britishers

1. The Word India is a derivative of the word Indus - the Subcontinent was called as such by the west. The Subcontinent had trading relationships going back to ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome.
2. It was the designation from a cultural / geographical stand point
3. India in the context of Vasco Da Gama or Columbus was NOT a nation state.
4. Ashoka the Great - the orginal title was the Great Torturer - I can name you a long litnay of Indian kings who plundered across the subcontinent. - Hell Shivaji/Marathas used to run spoiling raides into neighouring kingdoms for plunder. There are also enough accounts of Indian kings sacking temples for their wealth.
5. Suggest you do a 4000 Kingdom evolution study of the subcontinent. - Not just in terms of Ethnicity but also religion. You will realise how much cultural / ethno diversity we have - why do you think the Rajput kingdoms were turned so easily against one another?

And can you describe similarities between Indian kings and Britishers

What has this got to do with anything? India was not one country. has never been. At different points in time different dominant kingdoms have come and gone. Dont simply change the Goal Post for the sake of it.

I think you didnt understand at all what i said in my original post but are hung up on the substandard information/education fed to you. you are free to go educate yourself. Neither do you understand the difference between a Cultural Region and a Nation State.

BUT the fallacious premise of Linking Current Day Nation Building to Some Historic Notion of Indian Unity is pure dumbassary and infact will be destined to failed.

 

[rkhanna]

1. Didn’t mean there was a unified “India” like you see today—just a bunch of kingdoms, trading ports, and spice routes which they were looking for
2. The “Ghazwa-e-Hind” idea was more of an idea of conquest, not a united place. Back then, it was just a bunch of dynasties and tribes with some shared cultural threads, but no single “India” under one banner.
3. The concept of “genocide” didn’t exist like it does today. Ancient wars were savage, but usually over land or power—not wiping out people just for who they were. Go and see a Sri Lankan textbook on history, they describe the cholas the same way we describe Mughals or Sultans, much of the Tamil hatred comes from there. But as for a genocide, yes we did it....watch Odd Compass's video on Ashoka
4. The British were in it for total control, baby—money and power over every single person. Indian kings in those times? They ruled their land, had local loyalty. They were easily brought off or bargained by the British.

The idea of India as a cultural place existed but not as a nation state....nation states are fairly new and India is no different

lol - ditto

 

[Blademaster]

1) You have a very poor/simplistic understanding of what went down over 300 years in the Subcontinent.
2) There was no 'We' - the 'We' came only in the mid/late 1800s/early 1900s - and it was Ironically mainly because the British Crown replaced the East India Company with which came Fanatic Christian Missionaries - the "Unity" in India was in many ways a derivative of that push - the 1857 Mutiny was not anti british but more anti Christian - but became a focal foundation stone for national unity (in bits and pieces)
3) We still dont have ONE singular Idea of National Unity today (and IMO - there will never be)
4) Treating Historical Subcontinent as one entity (i.e India) is a fallacy of though proccess - we were more like Europe

Still doesn’t take away the fact that we allowed a country thousands of miles away to control an area the size of Europe with only 57k people. The lack of unity is a major reason for that fact. And the fact that you don’t accept the idea of a Bharat back then is pretty telling.

 

[rkhanna]

Still doesn’t take away the fact that we allowed a country thousands of miles away to control an area the size of Europe with only 57k people. The lack of unity is a major reason for that fact. And the fact that you don’t accept the idea of a Bharat back then is pretty telling.

""We" didnt allow anything as such and it didnt happen overnight.

If you see the operations of the first 100-150 years of East India Co in India it was primarily Capitalism plain and simple. They set up trading ports got their ships in - paid shitloads of Taxes to the Local Kings. The Kings got hooked to the cash (Keep in Mind India was insanely rich at that time) the British by paying this cash to Local Treasuries were alos able to buy Peace between waring Kingdoms

They then set up Infrastructrure (roads etc) from the INteriors (by product was that large scale movement of Goods and Labour greatly improvished large areas for the benefit of the Few

By this time the Sultan of Delhi was a puppet - ineffectual. The EIC then slowly implanted their officers incharge of the Local Armies for "Administrative purposes.

It was not some evil master plan enacted over 100+ yearts. it was the Organic Greed/Power Grab of Capitalism. by the mid 1850s the EIC became RICHER and more powerful than the Crown and the Crown took back control as they actually got shit scared of the EIC. Thats when shit went downhill really fast in the Subcontinent - the Majority of the Absuses, Exploitation of the Local Population happened 1830s onwards. The Shittary the Crown impossed on the Indian Population was so brutal that the United came as a ByProduct - BUT STILL it was Anti Christian Sentiment that Drove the "initial" unity rathar than Anti British.

 

[rkhanna]

And the fact that you don’t accept the idea of a Bharat back then is pretty telling.

How Can I? How Can You?

What was the Unifier in Ancient India? the Chola's ? Marathas? Rajputs? Mauryas? Who? Why did these Kingdomes constantly via to Dominate the Landscape for over 4000+ years?

Bharat-? Which Bharat - from the Scriptures? - Was the Clan of King Bharat - from the RSS? What about the Dravadians? Did they Accept this notion of Bharat? If we were so united as one people why did Bhuddism pretty much die out in this country?

Now - if you transpose the analogy to Christian Europe - were they one country? But they all call themselves Christians no?

 

[Noob]

Ashoka the Great - the orginal title was the Great Torturer - I can name you a long litnay of Indian kings who plundered across the subcontinent. - Hell Shivaji/Marathas used to run spoiling raides into neighouring kingdoms for plunder. There are also enough accounts of Indian kings sacking temples for their wealth.

Shivaji Maharaj looted alot of Gujarat villages under Mughal rule

 

[rkhanna]

Shivaji Maharaj looted alot of Gujarat villages under Mughal rule

And Bengal and Bihar under Mughal rule but do Read up on the Maratha Bargis Legions.

 

[VictorDelta4]

Guys move this discussion to an appropriate thread or create a new thread unless there were special forces units of those empires that are to be discussed-

Thread 'General History Thread - India : News , Updates & Discussions .'

Jul 13, 2024

Good question….. not so good answer above.

In fact the Marathas were poorly organized, badly equipped with guns & artillery and badly lead after their defeat by Ahmad Shah Durrani at the Panipat 3.

The British knew thur paid agents all the Maratha disposition and weaknesses. They set the public against Marathas about “Chauth” (quarter of revenue as tribute). After the British defeated the Marathas, they went back on their terms and imposed 40% taxes and took over the management of the tiny Rajas except the internal affairs. This way the British deceived the public and in turn the...

• Azaad
• Replies: 147
• Forum: Culture, Society and History

• 

Thread 'Indian Culture and society'

Jun 30, 2024

Ya'll Nibbiars

• haldilal
• Replies: 326
• Forum: Culture, Society and History

 

[COLDHEARTED AVIATOR]

Pheeling proud Ind……

What the heck storm came here

 

[BABU BHAIYAA]

(not related to thread)Guys we have some colonised minds trying to convince others to be same and derailing thread try to ignore them they will disappear from hear wrt time .