Probably off topic but correction :
*BRITISH* Indian army...........trained in modern warfare and discipline by the britishers, provided guns and modern weapons by the britishers, battle plans and tactics devised by the britishers and LEAD by british officers in battle all the while British were looting the land of same british Indian army soldiers.
Basically they used subcontinent people to fight the subcontinent people and occupied and looted whole subcontinent and beyond.
Also Indian warriors were too unorganized or undisciplined by themselves to ever conquer or even think of far off lands, but under the banner/leadership/training of British Indian army they wrecked the whole middle east, same middle east whose attacks started on us around 7th-8th century and different vibrant hindu cultures stretched till afghanistan. Not even once we thought of giving it back.
Wrong Sir.
It was called "Indian Army" Only/ After 1903 following Kitchener's reforms the term used were:
- The Indian Army was "the force recruited locally and permanently based in India, together with its expatriate British officers.
- The British Army in India consisted of British Army units posted to India for a tour of duty, and which would then be posted to other parts of the Empire or back to the UK.
- The Army of India consisted of both the Indian Army and the British Army in India.
# Let me tell you that the Indian Army as also The British Army in India was paid out of Govt of India budgets, their guns, weapons, artillery everything was paid out of the taxes and revenues the British levied on poor Indians... British themselves paid zilch.
# being soldiers was a profession and all those who entered India including Greeks and all Muslim Armies had very large portions of Indian as soldiers.
# Please do not apply today's standards of Nationalism and patriotism on those soldiers who belonged to particular geography but not to any nations. They did not even consider any Hindu, Mughals or Nawabs as their rulers and freely fought them. Indian Army had a majority of Muslim soldiers some of whom fought against Pathans tribesmen of NW Frontier throughout their lives. However, the British were wise not to use soldiers with strong affinities against their Communities. Gurkhas were not used against Nepal and Sikhs against Sikh rulers.
What was taken away from Indians was the leadership. Muslims also did the same. Officers were always Muslims in Muslim times and Britishers in British time. That is one of the greatest reasons why Indian Military leadership classes or castes virtually declined leading to degradation of nations or say subcontinent's military capabilities.
# Your assumptions are also wrong that Indian warriors were incapable of organizing themselves. Armies (I say again armies) do not organize themselves without a symbol and state. Indians warrior when under Sikh state and under Maratha state did wonders and succeeded in carving big kingdoms. Look at the great warrior Army of Maharana Pratap. Look the great Armies in South that kept the dutch and Portuguese at bay. You must also be made aware that the British faced one of the worst battles of their lives against native armies during and post rebellion battles. They were on the verge of losing...
# Indian Army not only trampled the Europe, entire Middle East and North Afrika but entire SE Asia to include with Singapore and Burma.
Self-assessment is welcome, self hatred is suicidal. Knowledge is the key to mental liberation.
and people here fell for it 
