Gujaratis are not martial enough: Army
deprofundis
By: M K Tayal
February 12, 2004
New Delhi: The Indian Army has politely but firmly rejected Deputy
Prime Minister L K Advani's request for raising a Gujarat regiment.
There are two reasons for this refusal. One, the army already has 23
regiments and sees little logic in expansion on the basis of caste and
community considerations, though it admits to facing a shortage of
ground troops. The other reason, that army officials cite only
strictly off the record, is that "Gujaratis, unlike some other Indian
groups, are not a martial race but mainly businessmen."
Army sources said Gujaratis in the army are known for their high rate
of "desertions and AWOL (absence without leave)".
Also, according to army officials, those Gujaratis who do not desert
early usually seek retirement after completing the 15 to 18-year
mandatory period that entitles a service man to benefits.
"Most seek retirement at the earliest to enjoy re-employment benefits
provided by the state governments and the private sector. At the same
time, they enjoy an ex-serviceman's benefits," said an official.
According to reports, Advani made a promise to raise a Gujarat
regiment during a recent visit to his Gandhinagar constituency.
Army officials feel the statement was a political gimmick. "In any
case, suggestions should have been sought from the army before making
any such promises," officials pointed out.
Officials said that despite the need for ground troops, the army
currently had no plans to raise a new regiment or even a unit
(battalion), leave alone one from Gujarat.
The last time infantry units were raised by the army was in Jammu &
Kashmir in 1990. Called the Rashtriya Rifles, the units were raised
mainly to conduct counter-terrorist operations.
Rest of the article at:
deprofundis
I.S.I walla
excellent gunfodder?
The only fighting Gujjurats know is gangraping minorities and burning
their slums, but that too is accomplished in the presence of armed
Hindu police.
MY CHALLENGE TO GUJJURATS: PROVE YOUR PATRIOTISM BY MARCHING TO KARGIL
G.Subramaniam
leader
"I.S.I walla" <isi_...@india.com> wrote in message
news:fdd87f61.0402...@posting.google.com...
Nirvana
What Indian ethnicities have their own regiment? I have a feeling
that the Malayalees do, since the Christian soldiers are being asked
to patrol Iraq. Is there a Telegu, Kanada, or Tamil one?
I know that there is a Rajput and Jatt regiment.
a b
> deprofundis,
>
> What Indian ethnicities have their own regiment? I have a feeling
> that the Malayalees do, since the Christian soldiers are being asked
> to patrol Iraq.
No. There is no malayalee regiment
> Is there a Telegu, Kanada, or Tamil one?
Only a Madras regiment (there may be a coorg/karnataka regiment)
List of regiments (Gorkhas, Nagas, Sikhs, Marathas, etc):
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Reg-Inf.html
Nirvana
hear that they are very un-martial.
Truth Hurts
I dont think we need them any more, not to mention that most of the
able bodied gujjus are either away from Gujarat or from India.
"G.Subramaniam" <gsu...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<ccSdnVGj_u1...@comcast.com>...
deprofundis
Gujarati War Heroes.
:-)
World's Thickest Book:
Great Gujarati Scamsters.
:-)
kvm...@rediffmail.com (Truth Hurts) wrote in message news:<b2f636fc.04031...@posting.google.com>...
Amit
Post Independence Indian Army does not have concept of
Martial/Nonmarial race
Britishers used maritial and nonmaritial race designation to reward
loyalties.
Regiment names continue to be on ethinic lines for historical reasons.
Also the concept of martial race was very dynamic in british period.
The first british regiment was Madras Sappers which consisted of
Pariahs
because they were social outcast and only group willing to work for
britishers.
These same non martial outcaste south indian soldiers defeated
Sirajudaulah's
army of 1 Lakh in bengal. Tipu sultans army in Maysore wars and
Marathas.
Later on Britishers designated Mahars as martial race ( there is still
a mahar
regiment but it does not necessarily have soldiers of mahar caste)
Actually Mahars were a outcate group engaged in leather/Hide
trade in maharashtra and had no history of warfare moderen training
made them winnable soldier.
In late 19th century designation of maritial race was taken away from
Mahars
to punish them.
After defeat of Sikh's in Anglo Sikh wars to win over sikh loyelties
Sikhs were
designated as martial race.
In some parts of India like Kumaon and Garwal there were no means of
lively
hood for most parts of the year so youth of these areas joined British
Indian
Army as professional soldiers and today we have various Kumaon and
Garhwal regiments, before british period there was no maritial
tradition in these areas.
Examples of Madras Sappers and Mahar regiment proves that it was
supirior
training and discipline which was real cause of victories of british
indian
army over armies of later to be designated "martial" Rajputs , Jats,
Sikhs
Dogras,Gorkhas , Baluch , Pathan etc
Foundation of defeat of these "martial" ethinic armies were laied by
various
so called non martial groups and regiments like Madras Sappers, Bengal
Engineering group, Mahars , Kumaounis and garhwalies
depro...@rediffmail.com (deprofundis) wrote in message news:<935c3c27.04040...@posting.google.com>...
pund kamath
> Basically you are an asshole
> Post Independence Indian Army does not have concept of
> Martial/Nonmarial race
> Britishers used maritial and nonmaritial race designation to reward
> loyalties.
> Regiment names continue to be on ethinic lines for historical reasons.
...read the original text...
You are absolutely right in this analysis. This 'martial race '
nonsens was essentially talked about in the officers' mess. valour,
and other qualities depend very much on leadership, training and
dedication etc.
Funny, Tamils who were labelled as 'non-martial races' by
ignoramusses, still have proovd themselves to formidable fighters in
Sri Lanka!!