Btw the reason you have given also explains the reason why some people in our country were able to put up a more fierce and stronger resistance compared to others.
The dumb colonialists did not understand this simple logic and were instead overawed and preoccupied their own romantic idea of "martial races". .
Weren't British troops driven out of SE ASIA by the Japs? Were they not made leave Belgium in the face of the Nazi invasion? I don't think these are assumptions.
Marathas were experts of Light Cavalry and Skirmish wars, although some huge head on battles were also won. I don't know how much their cavalry adapted to the British artillery over the decades but we know the results. The outcome of ones like Palassy proved fatal for many Indian powers directly or indirectly. Palassy is well known as the military turning point for East India Company's India venture.
I said about the Bengalis (I mistook/misread the Battle of Assaye as Battle of Plassey). They along with the Madrasis were the first & foremost troops of the EIC.
Even about the Madrasis , if I am not wrong, the British were always wary of the unrest among the Palayakarars, in the Nair areas and among the hilly areas of TN (Western TN).
Also since the southern confines of the empire was relatively peaceful & it was the northern areas which were disturbed, the british recruited heavily from those areas because the people understood the culture of those areas and more importantly the tactics and the martial races was a gift for that..an ego booster..& the dumasses fell for that.
There are many instances post independence where the martial races have been proved a BS and indian army too has experienced it.
Martial race theory is BS cooked by British. Aryan - Dravidian divide as well. Haven't heard of any research till date to have proved that Dravidian and Aryan were two distinct races. It is only "people speaking two different languages". Just the ones like DMK would like to cling to these pathetic theories for petty political gains.
As it gets difficult to lead a lot of millions, you divide them so even the less worthy could rule them separately and so are the less worthy issues at front.
Our netas were marvelous learners of their pre-predecessors .. Bhure Saab as I call them.
Ok we're successfully OT now
Troops were not recruited o the basis of their cultural understanding or similarity.There were meant to fight and kill the enemy.
If the disturbed areas were in the north then why were the troops from the same region made to fight in Burma in the 19th century, Mesopotamia in the early 20th century, Europe in WW1, east and SE Asia in WW2?
Burma, SE Asia are closer to Madras and Bengal presidencies than the regions where the "martial races " were recruited from.
The reason is the Racism practiced by the Colonial British rulers. That B#####d Churchill was the worst of them all.
Some times I feel happy that they were brought down to earth by the 5 foot tall Japanese troops in WW2.
Yeah I know. I've mentioned in one of my previous posts about the Pakistani false pride in "martial race" that led to their humiliation.
Don't take his name. Churchill was the man who left millions in Bengal starving in plain sight.
They knew they were sucking life from Indian veins by pulling the agricultural and industrial production for their own pockets. Yet he made that decision. He had to fight his war after all. I don't deem him any better than Stalin
If I had a chance, I'd bring him back to life and kill him again