From the man who defeated Napoleon

[Param]

a better question should be why are madrasis fighting alongside the british ?

And what about the Bengal army and Bombay armies? Were they fighting alongside the Russians?

The answer for your question_For the same reason the "martial races" of you know which region were recruited in bulk and fought for the Raj from 1857 to 1947.

 

[KS]

The 1857 revolt happened north of the Vindhyas. It was limited to a particular geographical region and the troops that mutineed were not from the Madras regiment.
Infact Madras regiment was one of the most loyal regiments during in 1857. The other loyal sections were Punjabi troops and Gurkhas.

But the colonial @#$%$# showed their true racist colors by reducing the strength of the Madras regiment using the racist Martial Race crap theory.

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.

 

[Virendra]

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

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Param]

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..

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.

There are many instances post independence where the martial races have been proved a BS and indian army too has experienced it

.
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.

 

[Virendra]

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

 

[KS]

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

Regards,
Virendra

Aryan-Dravidian wasnt completely BS...the difference is real on a linguistic sense...

 

[Param]

Don't take his name. Churchill was the man who left millions in Bengal starving in plain sight.
He had to fight his war after all. I don't deem him any better than Stalin

I hate him personally. His favourite Cigars used to come from our locality. Churchill made a derogatory statement against Tamilians in SE Asia when they volunteered to join the INA of Netaji.

 

[civfanatic]

Don't take his name. Churchill was the man who left millions in Bengal starving in plain sight.
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

Try saying that on a Western defence forum and see how everything related to "freedom of speech" and whatnot is thrown out the window.

 

[civfanatic]

Aryan-Dravidian wasnt completely BS...the difference is real on a linguistic sense...

The BS part was extrapolating racial differences based on linguistic differences.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Mahatma gandhi gave the worst jhappad one could imagine to Churchill.He destroyed everything Churchill tried to save from Hitlesss

 

[Iamanidiot]

Guys Churchill got the worst Jhappad from Gandhi

 

[Virendra]

Aryan-Dravidian wasnt completely BS...the difference is real on a linguistic sense...

It is as good as saying that Aryan language (Sanskrit-Prakrit) was similar to European-Celtic languages and so these could've been the same guys.
I agree that there are linguistic differences. But linguistics is not enough a factor to determine the origin of people. Fall of Aryan Invasion Theory has proven that beyond any doubt.
Where are we taking this thread by the way

Regards,
Virendra

 

[civfanatic]

The biggest blows to the Aryan Invasion Theory have come in recent years.

1) DNA tests have shown that there is little racial difference between the peoples of India. The North-South divide is a linguistic divide only, not a racial one.

2) Further research into the Indus Valley Civilizations has shown that the IVC did not collapse around 2000 B.C.E. from a devastating Aryan invasion as was previously assumed, but continued in intermittent stages until around 1500 B.C.E. or later. There were, most likely, large migrations of people from Central Asia to the subcontinent around this time, but their arrival was nowhere near as earth-shaking as the colonialist historians had it. It appears that the establishment of agricultural settlements and regional polities in India during the Iron Age was the work of the indigenous people or a mix of indigenous people and Central Asian migrants. It was not a case of light-skinned, technologically advanced Aryans ruling over a vast, submissive dark-skinned Dravidian population.

 

[Param]

It is as good as saying that Aryan language (Sanskrit-Prakrit) was similar to European-Celtic languages and so these could've been the same guys.
I agree that there are linguistic differences. But linguistics is not enough a factor to determine the origin of people. Fall of Aryan Invasion Theory has proven that beyond any doubt.
Where are we taking this thread by the way

Regards,
Virendra

There is no evidence of an 'invasion'. But Indo Aryans were racially different from Dravidians and other racial groups that inhabited the subcontinent.

Indus Valley civiisation_
1 Urban,
2.farmers and traders,
3. idol worshippers,
4.gave importance to Bull,
5.Did not use horse

Early Vedic civilisation(indo aryan)_
1.Rural,
2.Pastoral,
3.nature worshippers(indra, varuna, agni ets),
4.gave importance to Cow,
5. Used horses in large scale.

Were they the same people? How did they have so many differences around the same time in history?

 

[The Messiah]

The biggest blows to the Aryan Invasion Theory have come in recent years.

1) DNA tests have shown that there is little racial difference between the peoples of India. The North-South divide is a linguistic divide only, not a racial one.

2) Further research into the Indus Valley Civilizations has shown that the IVC did not collapse around 2000 B.C.E. from a devastating Aryan invasion as was previously assumed, but continued in intermittent stages until around 1500 B.C.E. or later. There were, most likely, large migrations of people from Central Asia to the subcontinent around this time, but their arrival was nowhere near as earth-shaking as the colonialist historians had it.

This is what most likely happened.

Anyone who believes in aryan invasion theory is an idiot.

 

[KS]

Troops were not recruited o the basis of their cultural understanding or similarity.There were meant to fight and kill the enemy.

true..but a punjabi knew a punjabi very well than a Madrasi or a Bengali....moreover pitting clans against clans of the same tribe gives you far more reults than pitting a complete stranger against a unified tribe.

This may not be the only reason...but I guess it may be one...

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.

1857 and the consequent distrust in the Bengali troops..moreover with ever increasing number of pathans,baluchis,punjabis,gurkhas willing to join the army why need others who were not willing or were deemed inferior..?

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.

I say that was not only racism but also a genuince but pigheaded romance for the constant clan fighting...

.

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.

Not only the pak army...but also the indian army.

 

[KS]

It is as good as saying that Aryan language (Sanskrit-Prakrit) was similar to European-Celtic languages and so these could've been the same guys.
I agree that there are linguistic differences. But linguistics is not enough a factor to determine the origin of people. Fall of Aryan Invasion Theory has proven that beyond any doubt.
Where are we taking this thread by the way

Regards,
Virendra

I agree...but all Param's post, your post & fanatic's post look valid...

the conclusion obtained could be...they were different people but with over time, they intermarried, the genepool got mixed and now the racial difference has diminished to a very large extent....

Morover one thing to be noted is.when we say (Adi) Dravidians in the racial sene,the most likely of them today are the hill tribes in border reas of TN & Karnataka - the Toda, Irulas, Badugas etc.

 

[Param]

1857 and the consequent distrust in the Bengali troops..moreover with ever increasing number of pathans,baluchis,punjabis,gurkhas willing to join the army why need others who were not willing or were deemed inferior..?

deemed inferior....... means racism, practised by the British colonial rulers and those who subscribed to it.

There were a lot of others who were willing to join the army but the Brits won't recruit them.

 

[Param]

the conclusion obtained could be...they were different people but with over time, they intermarried, the genepool got mixed and now the racial difference has diminished to a very large extent....

I agree. 100% pure races are hard to come by. Those who try doing politics or have false pride in it are morons.

 

[KS]

deemed inferior....... means racism, practised by the British colonial rulers and those who subscribed to it.

There were a lot of others who were willing to join the army but the Brits won't recruit them.

That's what I meant.

They also had a pig-headed romanticism with the constant/pointless fighting amonng the various clans over there.

If they had come in the time of "Moovendar" to South they would have named us too Martial