When the British Indian Army Marched on Beijing!

[balai_c]

Mercenary

A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party".[2][3]

As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is essentially motivated by money, the term mercenary usually carries negative connotations. There is a blur in the distinction between a mercenary and a foreign volunteer, when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain. For instance, the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas of the British and Indian armies are not mercenaries under the laws of war, since although they may meet many of the requirements of Article 47 of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, they are exempt under clauses 47(a)(c)(d)(e)&(f); some journalists describe them as mercenaries nevertheless.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Many Indians joined the British Army simply because there no viable alternative. The British destroyed many indigenous industries which would have employed these men in an earlier age. Given a choice between living in poverty or joining the army, many chose the latter.

During WWII some 28 lakh Indians volunteered to fight for Britain, but I doubt many of those 28 lakh soldiers cared about the Battle of Britain.

They helped England win on 2 fronts . Montgomery once said he rather
command Indian soldiers than British soldiers. If Indians cared or not is
irrelevant the British used them for a purpose and achieved their goals.

 

[balai_c]

Many Indians joined the British Army simply because there no viable alternative. The British destroyed many indigenous industries which would have employed these men in an earlier age. Given a choice between living in poverty or joining the army, many chose the latter.

During WWII some 28 lakh Indians volunteered to fight for Britain, but I doubt many of those 28 lakh soldiers cared about the Battle of Britain.

India was an extremely poor and uneducated country with average life span about 30 years , and a literacy rate of about 5 to 8 percent. With such a massive barrier before them, Indian people were truly in an extremely pathetic shape. I believe I have been misunderstood. I have no doubt over the valour of thee great soldiers. But I can be stated that they were not fighting for their country , or their people , but for a foreign power. They wanted their lively hood, and two square meals a day , something that was a lot harder to get those days. We must remember that famines were a common occurrence in the Raj Era India.

These people were extremely professional and had high moral standards, something that is common among our countrymen. But many times these very people were used to suppress their own countrymen. Without the British Indian army, there would be no British Raj or the forced subjugation of the Indian people. So, this course of behavior cannot be inferred to stem from patriotism, but mere professionalism and rigid adherence to discipline. While that is not a bad thing by itself, the problem lies when you are at the receiving end of this blind adherence to order. Imagine how would you feel if you were ordered to kill your friends , your relatives murdered right before your eyes.


The Jallianwala Bagh massacre is a succinct example of this dilemma.

On April 13, the traditional festival of Baisakhi, thousands of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh (garden) near the Harmandir Sahib in Amritsar.

An hour after the meeting began as scheduled at 4:30 pm, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer came along with a group of sixty-five Gurkha and twenty-five Baluchi soldiers into the Bagh. Fifty of them were armed with rifles. Dyer had also brought two armoured cars armed with machine guns. But the vehicles were left outside as they were unable to enter the Bagh through the narrow entrance. The Jallianwala Bagh was surrounded on all sides by houses and buildings and had few narrow entrances. Most of them were kept permanently locked. The main entrance was relatively wider, but was guarded by the troops backed by the armoured vehicles.

General Dyer without warning the crowd to disperse, blocked the main exits. He explained later about this act; "was not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience."[15] Dyer ordered his troops to begin shooting towards the densest sections of the crowd (including women and children). He continued the shooting, approximately 1,650 rounds in all, until the ammunition supply was almost exhausted till 10 minutes.[16]

Many people died in stampedes at the narrow gates or by jumping into the solitary well on the compound to escape the shooting. A plaque in the monument at the site, set up after independence, says that 120 bodies were pulled out of the well. The wounded could not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew was declared and many more died during the night.

The soldiers who carried out this massacre were Indians (apart from the gurkha rifleman) , but they without flinching could gun down so many innocent people , who were merely peaceful protesters. Can this be done by today's Indian army? No, because they are not merely serving the constitution , but also serving the Indian people , their own people; something that cannot be said about Raj era BIA.

This is the point I am trying to stress. I have nothing but admiration and sympathy for those brave and noble souls, but they were victims of a harsh and sadistic era where Indians were ordered to killed their brothers and sisters because of a foreign power, not just in India but across the entire world!!