How British Indian Army destroyed the Ottomans

afako

Hindufying India
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
1,912
Likes
6,967
Country flag
During World War I, Indian troops spread across the Ottoman empire, helped lay the foundations of West Asia as we know it

“The Turkish Empire has committed suicide, and dug with its own hands its grave”, the British prime minister Herbert Asquith, proclaimed in early November 1914. He was responding to the Ottoman naval bombardment of Ukraine, bringing Turkey into the First World War in alliance with Germany against the Allies.

To illustrate — in north-west Iran and the Caucasus, Indian regiments helped to block Turkish movements towards Central Asia. In central and southern Iran, they attacked suspected anti-Allied jihadists, and countered Turkish and German agents seeking to infiltrate sensitive Indian border zones. From the Arabian Gulf, Indian troops attacked hundreds of miles into Iraq, reaching its northernmost Ottoman province to seize the oil fields. On the Arabian Peninsula, they contained the Ottoman garrisons of Yemen, assisted Lawrence of Arabia and embedded like him in local Arab rebel forces, and raided Ottoman outposts on Red Sea islands. Then out of Egypt Indian units made multiple attacks, both westwards in the Western Desert against Libyan jihadists, and eastwards into the Sinai, Palestine and Syria. From Egypt they also took part in the Allies’ amphibious assault on European Turkey: The Gallipoli campaign.

By November 1918, the Indian army’s immense grip on formerly Ottoman-controlled soil, where it had defeated the Turks, was reflected in the sheer size and breadth of its occupation. It was the single-largest Allied force in the Turkish theatres, having deployed a total of approximately 7,60,000 Indian troops to them. Its men stood guard from Basra, Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul to Cairo, Suez, Gaza, Jerusalem, Amman, Haifa, Damascus, Gallipoli and Istanbul. At the time, the British empire, in fact, approached its territorial zenith.

The Allied peace negotiations with the Turks were to last longer than the First World War itself. Their protraction was proof of their complexity. The Allies hotly competed for the spoils of Ottoman defeat: The British angled for new British-influenced Middle Eastern buffer states from Iraq to Palestine in order to cushion the Indian imperial sphere, while the French, Greeks and Italians looked to partition the Ottoman empire for new imperial possessions of their own. The Turks wanted Turkey for themselves and fought for it, above all against the Greeks.

Eventually, the Allies and the Turks signed the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923. In conjunction with other international agreements applying more widely to the Ottoman lands of 1914-18, the borders were drawn of the Turkish Republic and other post-war Middle Eastern states and European-administered mandates including Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. The map of the modern Middle East had taken shape.

The Indian army gradually evacuated the Middle East up to the late 1920s as the post-war settlements took effect. Having been a wrecking ball to knock down the Ottoman empire during the war, its place between the old and the new Middle East had ultimately been destructive — on behalf, of course, of the British empire.

https://indianexpress.com/article/o...y-turkish-empire-ottoman-world-war-i-5439839/


While the Muslims from India had other thoughts:

For many South Asian Muslims the thought of going to war against the Ottoman Caliph was repulsive and lead some to defect to the Ottomans.

The website for Britain's Sikh Museum contains a critical letter sent to a Muslim soldier serving in France in March 1916 that explains the distaste many South Asian Muslims toward serving Britain against the Ottomans: "You are entangled in a war in which no victory has been gained nor can any be gained in the future. What you ought to do is raise your fellow caste-men against the English and join the army of Islam (the Turks)."

Indeed, the multifaith character of the Singapore rebellion was noted by the Ottoman Consul General Rıfat Efendi in Batavia who filed a dispatch on the rebellion, "the truth is that an Indian Muslim, in the aforementioned city and Indian Muslim soldiers have declared major Jihad for the greater Islamic state against the British and also including the Hindu soldiers arriving from Singapore as well those Muslim civilians according to the intelligence that I have received" he wrote.

The Singapore Mutiny was not the only pro-Ottoman mutiny of World War I. Less than a year later a similar mutiny erupted in the winter of 1915-1916 when over 400 members unit the Indian Army's 15th Lancers, another majority Muslim unit refused to fight their Ottomans co-religionists during the Mesopotamia Campaign.


WW1 though not our war nor initiated by us, but nonetheless fought completely with our men, resources and money. We certainly can claim the credit for the victory and the effects it had.

Muslims from India supported the Khilafat and also ran against the interests of the empire and also India n the name of Jihad.

Indian contribution to WW1:

India provided Britain with not just men and material, but finances as well to fight World War 1. India bore £100 million towards the cost of the war. In the context of Britain; £100 in 1917 would be worth £34,000 today. An initial offer of a lump sum of £100 million was made in 1917. Three quarters of this was raised by war loans or bonds and the rest by the Government of India. In terms of direct monetary contribution India gave; £146.2 million from its revenues by 1920.

172,815 animals, which included 85,953 horses, 65,398 ponies and mules, 10,781 camels, 5,061 bullocks, 5,692 dairy cattle and 369.1 million tonnes of supplies and stores left the ports of India for various destinations. Within the first few weeks of the war, India supplied 70,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, 600,002 rifles, mortars and machine guns. Considerable quantities of shell cases were manufactured. The Army Clothing Department produced 41,920,223 garments between 1914 and 1918. Raw materials like rough tanned hides, wool, manganese, mica, salt-petre, timber, bamboo, raw silk, hemp, coir, tea, rubber, petroleum oils and food stuffs were supplied. A total of 2,737,862 tonnes of items such as rice, flour, atta, ghee, sugar, tea, tinned meat, grain and hay for animals, jam, biscuits and firewood were shipped from India up to March 1919.


While rest of the empire took loan from British treasury. India self financed its war. Thus, we did wipe the so called largest Islamic empire. If any Turk or Paki talks about history, we surely can rub on their faces. :bplease:
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,369
Country flag
Interesting coincidence.

.......................................
Two different places at two opposite corners of Islamic civilization.

Ottoman Turk empire / Mughal empire (mughals being turkic mongols who took over power from supposedly Turk sultanates in India)
Vs
British east India company and its successors + Indian mercenaries + cost paid by Indians (even though Mughal empire had almost ended, Indians failed to consolidate and complete official formality and administrative restructuring, which was done by the British/ the company)
 

Icarus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
672
Likes
1,029
Country flag
*British Indian army................even our COAS like Sam Manekshaw , Thimayya , Cariappa served in British Indian army , would u call them lackeys or coolies ,
What would u call them?
........
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
1,514
Likes
4,362
Country flag
What would u call them?
........
1) There was no INDIA before the British came.
2) Large Chunk of soldiers who served the Raj did so because soldiering was the only profession they knew
3) a LARGE chunk of Indian pro indepdence politi supported Indian Soldiers in the wars because of the reason they were fighting - against oppression (yes i know the irony right!)
4) A large chunk fought the wars because they were simply employed (exactly as what happens today)
5) When the Same uneducated Indian Soldiers came back from WWI they came back with ideas of Liberty and Civil Rights which lead (over a series of events) to the Mumbai Naval Mutiny and in many ways Expedited the Independence movement.

Now that you on your high horse sits decades later from the comfort of your house how do you possible categorize millions of individuals by one word?

By the way Ironically no words are ever mentioned by "nationalist" towards the Rajesthani "Bahadurs" and other upper class indians who were part of the british administration and who got honors and tittles for ratting out their fellow Indians.

What about the Marwaris and Sindhis and Parsis who did open business with the British and made millions on the exploitation of other Indians. ? What do you call them? Practical?

If you are ever in London and happen to go to the British National Archives please go have a look at a register they hold on what they i call "Collaborators" to their rule. it will shock you.

So judge not before you have finished learning.
 

Popeye

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
91
Likes
212
Country flag
1) There was no INDIA before the British came.
2) Large Chunk of soldiers who served the Raj did so because soldiering was the only profession they knew
3) a LARGE chunk of Indian pro indepdence politi supported Indian Soldiers in the wars because of the reason they were fighting - against oppression (yes i know the irony right!)
4) A large chunk fought the wars because they were simply employed (exactly as what happens today)
5) When the Same uneducated Indian Soldiers came back from WWI they came back with ideas of Liberty and Civil Rights which lead (over a series of events) to the Mumbai Naval Mutiny and in many ways Expedited the Independence movement.

Now that you on your high horse sits decades later from the comfort of your house how do you possible categorize millions of individuals by one word?

By the way Ironically no words are ever mentioned by "nationalist" towards the Rajesthani "Bahadurs" and other upper class indians who were part of the british administration and who got honors and tittles for ratting out their fellow Indians.

What about the Marwaris and Sindhis and Parsis who did open business with the British and made millions on the exploitation of other Indians. ? What do you call them? Practical?

If you are ever in London and happen to go to the British National Archives please go have a look at a register they hold on what they i call "Collaborators" to their rule. it will shock you.

So judge not before you have finished learning.
Soo, by this logic Only Bengalis fought for country, rest of did whatever, only for personal interest gain.
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
1,514
Likes
4,362
Country flag
Soo, by this logic Only Bengalis fought for country, rest of did whatever, only for personal interest gain.
No. My comment does not lead to your concluded hypothesis. BUT thats the logic Icarus is using. I was expanding the miopia of his statement to show its futility.

So you are simply proving my point
 

Icarus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
672
Likes
1,029
Country flag
1) There was no INDIA before the British came.
2) Large Chunk of soldiers who served the Raj did so because soldiering was the only profession they knew
3) a LARGE chunk of Indian pro indepdence politi supported Indian Soldiers in the wars because of the reason they were fighting - against oppression (yes i know the irony right!)
4) A large chunk fought the wars because they were simply employed (exactly as what happens today)
5) When the Same uneducated Indian Soldiers came back from WWI they came back with ideas of Liberty and Civil Rights which lead (over a series of events) to the Mumbai Naval Mutiny and in many ways Expedited the Independence movement.

Now that you on your high horse sits decades later from the comfort of your house how do you possible categorize millions of individuals by one word?

By the way Ironically no words are ever mentioned by "nationalist" towards the Rajesthani "Bahadurs" and other upper class indians who were part of the british administration and who got honors and tittles for ratting out their fellow Indians.

What about the Marwaris and Sindhis and Parsis who did open business with the British and made millions on the exploitation of other Indians. ? What do you call them? Practical?

If you are ever in London and happen to go to the British National Archives please go have a look at a register they hold on what they i call "Collaborators" to their rule. it will shock you.

So judge not before you have finished learning.
Let's not glorify mercenaries. Thank you.
 

Icarus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
672
Likes
1,029
Country flag
I will call them what they were. There was no republic of India before 1947 and they served British which ruled over India. Post independence they rightfully served their motherland. Dont insult them by calling coolies and lackeys
Okay, they were not coolies. They were mercenaries who fought for Britain and killed fellow Indians under their orders.
 

Deathstar

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
2,125
Likes
6,175
Country flag
Okay, they were not coolies. They were mercenaries who fought for Britain and killed fellow Indians under their orders.
There wasnt any India before 1947. Just replace republic of India with British india and freedom fighters with say Naxalites. Basically they were doing their states job. There weren't mercenaries.
Remember Gandhi had supported British in WW2 so was he a mercenary???
SC Bose qualified Imperial Civil Service exam , so was he a mercenary???
Its quite easy for you to say such things after 70 years of independence.
I dont care if u think they were mercernaries its your opinion.
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
5,364
Likes
26,824
Country flag
There wasnt any India before 1947. Just replace republic of India with British india
technically you are wrong. people here didn’t come from mars. in past this whole sub continent indian but different parts ruled by different people but genes and identity was the same.
british made this aryan invasion story to create divide between north and south.

and brtish indian army was nothing more than a civilian butcher.
indian army and british indian army is totally a different thing.
british taking indians to fight their war was like master taking it’s slave to fight nothing else.

PS- heading of this thread should be how british indian army destroyed outman empire. they were not indian army. british indian army worked under the rule and loyalty to the crown.
 
Last edited:

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
5,364
Likes
26,824
Country flag
Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919 when Acting Brigadier-General Reginald Dyerordered troops of the British Indian Army to fire their rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab, killing at least 400, including 41 children, one only six weeks old. Over 1,000 were injured

this is just one of the thousand incidents.
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
5,364
Likes
26,824
Country flag
By the way Ironically no words are ever mentioned by "nationalist" towards the Rajesthani "Bahadurs" and other upper class indians who were part of the british administration and who got honors and tittles for ratting out their fellow Indians.
that’s why freedoms struggle was the struggle of common people. and people who had large crowd on their back. not of rich elites who were sucking bloods of poor indians.
but this still doesn’t change the fact that british indian army was nothing more than a army of slaves. which was also loyal to the crown fought many wars for the crown and many were indeed we’re working for pro freedom moment. but it’s also a fact they british indian army slaughtered indians like sheep.
how many people were part of establishment thousands? vs how many xyz class people were part of freedom struggle? fact still doesn’t change the reality that people in power +loyal soldiers of british administration killed uncountable innocent indians.
 

Icarus

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
672
Likes
1,029
Country flag
Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919 when Acting Brigadier-General Reginald Dyerordered troops of the British Indian Army to fire their rifles into a crowd of unarmed civilians in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar, Punjab, killing at least 400, including 41 children, one only six weeks old. Over 1,000 were injured

this is just one of the thousand incidents.
No, no, no, no, this never happened. There was no India before 1947, so no Indians died during jalianwallah bagah massacre ( @Deathstar logic).
 

rkhanna

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
1,514
Likes
4,362
Country flag
technically you are wrong. people here didn’t come from mars. in past this whole sub continent indian but different parts ruled by different people but genes and identity was the same.
british made this aryan invasion story to create divide between north and south.

and brtish indian army was nothing more than a civilian butcher.
indian army and british indian army is totally a different thing.
british taking indians to fight their war was like master taking it’s slave to fight nothing else.

PS- heading of this thread should be how british indian army destroyed outman empire. they were not indian army. british indian army worked under the rule and loyalty to the crown.

Below is the last from me on this matter (ps. not trying to be antagonistic)

1) The Aryan invasion theory is a theory is neither been proved nor disproved. Ironically the "Gene identity" you talk off has the same statistical error between Indians and Central Asians as well. And there is also a statistically significant difference between various south indian gene codes, various tribal adhivasis and the basic north Indian.

2) the Indian subcontinent has been one of the most invaded land masses in history. Even without the invasions we had trade relations with the Middle East and Europe going back to the Mauryas. To say that our "genes" have been muddled is an understatement.

3) By lumping all inhabitants of the Sub Continent as "Indian" (pre british) is disingenuous - Because then indian soldiers have been butchering Indian civilians under various kings since all the gods turned the lights on and ironically since 1947 as well

Please note that alot of eastern Kingdoms and Southern Kingdoms did view north and west Indian empires as foreigners as well. In fact our own mythological retelling of history has the terms nagas and asuras thrown in to signify a people not off the "same".

Infact Subcontinental Kingdoms stretched from Iran/afghanistan to South East Asia from various times and culture, language did infact shift tremendously through geography and time.

My point is we couldn't be Indians simply because we lacked any cohesive national identity. The Closest example of the Subcontinent was Medieval Europe.

(Ironically in Maharahstra - Marwaris and Gujrati in the 50s/60s and Biharis in the 90s and 2000s were also kicked out by calling them foreigners)

4) By accepting that these soldiers of British India as cowards, slaves, etc etc then you must agree that Maneksaw, Cariappa and every soldier that fought all the way to Kashmir (and some in 71) were all Cowardly Cunt bags who should be stripped of their honors and vilified outside parliament - The First 30 years of Free India was essentially the British Indian Army without Whitey overseers. - Accept it. By rationalizing this away you are doing yourself a disservice.

5) India's freedom struggle WAS NOT born out of the common people. Ironically it was born out of the elite who gave it structure and purpose and united a disparate people behind them. They united small grass route rebellions and discontent and give people a voice - from Maharahstra to Bengal.

6) the British Indian Army post WWI had a SIGNIFICANT Impact on the momentum of the Freedom struggle.

7) Loyalty to the Crown is also Loyalty to your Sovereign - Ironically which is a big part of our Dharma - By Many the Queen was seen as just another ruler in India. However the Late 1800s and early 1900s exposed Educated Indians to the thought ideas of the west including liberty and civil rights and colonialization. The Indian Soldiers - who were poor and uneducated - then experienced the same thought ideas through war. Both came back to India to claim their rightful place in the modern world. These were the conditions that existed that laid the groundwork to a successful pan subcontinental freedom movement.

8) For Jalliawalabag - Just so you know my Great Grand Father, Newly married, was there. I never met him but have photos of the bullet that went through his arm - Human Rights were violated without a shadow of a doubt. A soldier Kills. and on average a soldier will always follow an order no matter how grotesque. Thats what the history of the world tells us. Has the same not happened in Independent India? The Sad truth however is that the British did way worse than this incident to us as a people. Not all of them by soldiers but by ordinary folk. Most of whom ended up doing or resulting in evil things by simply chose a path of least resistance simply to get by and survive. And these people were NOT a minority but the Majority of our population.

Your understanding of the complexities of Sub Continental History will always been limited if your only filter is Black and White. The onus to expand your thought horizon is on you. learn, read, continue to evolve

Using Half Truths, non-contextualized History, innuendo and conjecture results in a narrative that is value destructive. Vilifying soldiers is counter productive.

The British truely ravaged our land like no other. And since Independence India as a country has risen leaps and bounds like no other country on this planet. Today for a $2000 per capita economy the institutions we put in place are unprecedented in entirety of Human History - Parliament, Supreme Court, EC, RBI, IIT, IIMs, ISRO, etc etc etc. in 1947 we went from 0.002% of the Global GDP to a top 10 economy within 3 generations and we did it without putting a gun to peoples heads (China)

One of the reasons we achieved this is because right after independence this country went about lifting ourselves up and kept working. We didnt wallow in self pity and self destruct like so many other ex colonies have done (almost all).

So lets drop the beaten bahu crap and get on with it, there is much work to be done.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top