Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:28 AM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: UK
Posts: 2,038
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomarRajput View Post
Population of the countries today is much larger than the population of the sub-continent back then. Also Nepal was the only country that had independence during that time.
I know. They all increased. The rough parity of 1:7 has existed all along. Indeed in 1940s I think Pashtun and Punjab ( Pakistan ) population was even less as Pakistan has experianced a higher growth rate in population then India. Thus in 1940s the parity could even have been 1:9

And here we are talking about peoples. Peoples make countries not the other way around. My grandad fought in WW2. There was no Pakistan but he died and is buried in Pakistan because the area he came fron constitutes modern day Pakistan.

As I said the Nepali came first followed by men from what is now Pakistan. That is the Pashtun and Punjabi. The same people who make the modern Pakistan Army.

As a example Sepoy Ali Haider's unit was the Frontier Regiment which was which was assigned to the River Senio, near Fusignano in Italy against Germans when he won the VC.

That Frontier Regiment was allocated to Pakistan in 1947 as most men were from Bannu, Kohat, Peshawar area of modern day Pakistan. Today it still forms one of the elite regiments in the Pakistan Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_F...r_Force_Rifles

Ps. What is now Pakistan came under British rule after 1849 and recruitment from this region only commenced in 1850s.

Last edited by PaKeeza; August 3rd, 2015 at 11:33 AM.
PaKeeza is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:35 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Canada
Posts: 475

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaKeeza View Post
I know. They all increased. The rough parity of 1:7 has existed all along. Indeed in 1940s I think Pashtun and Punjab ( Pakistan ) population was even less as Pakistan has experianced a higher growth rate in population then India. Thus in 1940s the parity could even have been 1:9

And here we are talking about peoples. Peoples make countries not the other way around. My grandad fought in WW2. There was no Pakistan but he died and is buried in Pakistan because the area he came fron constitutes modern day Pakistan.

As I said the Nepali came first followed by men from what is now Pakistan. That is the Pashtun and Punjabi. The same people who make the modern Pakistan Army.

As a example Sepoy Ali Haider's unit was the Frontier Regiment which was which was assigned to the River Senio, near Fusignano in Italy against Germans when he won the VC.

That Frontier Regiment was allocated to Pakistan in 1947 as most men were from Bannu, Kohat, Peshawar area of modern day Pakistan. Today it still forms one of the elite regiments in the Pakistan Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_F...r_Force_Rifles

Ps. What is now Pakistan came under British rule after 1849 and recruitment from this region only commenced in 1850s.
I don't buy that military awards should be looked at in proportion to the population of a country but from my count there are 22 Indians with 5 being Sikh. 12 recipients from Nepal.

Last edited by TomarRajput; August 3rd, 2015 at 11:37 AM.
TomarRajput is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:36 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: UK
Posts: 2,038
Blog Entries: 2

And the issue about whether these men were "traitors" is to my mind irrelevant. Valour and bravery in battle should be appreciated fro m whatever side of the political cause it comes from.

Although I would if Sepoy Ali Haider VC was alive today I would shake his hand. He was fighting against Nazi Geermany and to my minds that was a noble cause whatever uniform he was wearing or whatever flag his regiment held aloft.
PaKeeza is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:38 AM   #14

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,328

A simple ratio of populations assumes that military recruitment is proportional to the size of the population, which it is not. And also assumes a uniform distribution of service personnel in areas where they have the chance of winning VCs.

Furthermore, I fail to see why a comparison between "races" is necessary.

Should this thread degenerate into yet another India vs Pakistan argument, it will be closed.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:43 AM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: UK
Posts: 2,038
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomarRajput View Post
I don't buy that military awards should be looked at in proportion to the population of a country but from my count there are 22 Indians with 5 being Sikh.
You don't have to. If tiny As a example if tiny Ireland gave 100 VC but all of Scotland gave 10 VC you don't have to buy anything but you will have to accept that the Irish have made a darn good contribution considering their tiny size.

Most things in life are relative to population, thus per capita. Otherwise you get skewed results and any meaningful comparison is impossible.

As I said the figures for Victoria Cross holders in the erstwhile British Indian Army show the Nepal came No 1 ( no doubt thanks to the brave Gurkhas ) followed by No 2 Pakistan ( no doubt dare I say brave Pashtun and Punjabi ) and India comes way behind by proportion. Bangladesh does not even score one.
PaKeeza is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:46 AM   #16

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,351

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
A simple ratio of populations assumes that military recruitment is proportional to the size of the population, which it is not.
It wasn't about population ratio but after the 1857 Rebellion British stopped recruiting from North India(UP, Bihar, Bengal) as most of the revolting soldiers were from this region. So, they focused on recruitment from North-West aka Punjab and Frontiers.
Devdas is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 11:46 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Canada
Posts: 475

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
A simple ratio of populations assumes that military recruitment is proportional to the size of the population, which it is not. And also assumes a uniform distribution of service personnel in areas where they have the chance of winning VCs.

Furthermore, I fail to see why a comparison between "races" is necessary.

Should this thread degenerate into yet another India vs Pakistan argument, it will be closed.
Hi, I created the thread to address claims of certain groups dominating the recruitment and being more "martial" which was claimed on a older thread.
TomarRajput is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 01:43 PM   #18

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 8,515

May I suggest that as neither Pakistan nor the Republic of India in its current form existed in WW1 or WW2 that what particular region VC recipients came from is totally irrelevant to the men's incredible valour and they were not fighting for a particular country, they were doing their jobs and doubtless took pride in "doing their bit" for a wider cause that happened to be the nebulous idea of "the Empire". Likewise the Irish recipients in WW1 were not fighting for Ireland, but for King and Country--even the ones who didn't believe in the King and wanted him out of their country. All of the Indian (old style) troops and the Irish too were volunteers as were the American, Danish, Swiss, Jamaican, South African and most of the WW1 Australian medallists and they are all appreciated equally. FYI there is tradition in the British forces at any rate, that all ranks salute the VC--even the Chief of the General Staff salutes a private wearing the purple ribbon.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 04:23 PM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Feb 2015
From: UK
Posts: 2,038
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
May I suggest that as neither Pakistan nor the Republic of India in its current form existed in WW1 or WW2 that what particular region VC recipients came from is totally irrelevant to the men's incredible valour and they were not fighting for a particular country, they were doing their jobs and doubtless took pride in "doing their bit" for a wider cause that happened to be the nebulous idea of "the Empire". Likewise the Irish recipients in WW1 were not fighting for Ireland, but for King and Country--even the ones who didn't believe in the King and wanted him out of their country. All of the Indian (old style) troops and the Irish too were volunteers as were the American, Danish, Swiss, Jamaican, South African and most of the WW1 Australian medallists and they are all appreciated equally. FYI there is tradition in the British forces at any rate, that all ranks salute the VC--even the Chief of the General Staff salutes a private wearing the purple ribbon.
Agreed. In my mind the fight was on the side of right. Surely fighting against Nazism was right and proper thing to do. In that vein I would like mention the story of a tiny village in Pakistan called Dulmial.

This tiny village has had the distinction of providing more men to the war effort ( both WW wars ) than most areas of the empire probably including most parts of UK.

During the war almost every single able bodied men signed up and fought in the British Army. A village with about 850 males had 460 men in the British Empire Army. If you exclude old, the young that would equate to almost all the able bodied signed up to join the British Empire Army. Nine men lost their lives. In memory of this service, by this tiny community in dry mountains of Chakwal, the British Army provided a cannon in 1925 as tribute to the fallen of the village which was placed in the village square where it still occupies pride of place today.

The descendants of Captain Malik Ghulam Mohammed live on today and the entire village still cherishes the memory of those men who never came back but perished in trenches of the Western Front.

Click the image to open in full size.


The Centre for Hidden Histories The Dulmial Gun
https://www.journalism.co.uk/press-r...-/s66/a562999/
The Pakistani village that gave its sons to fight for Britain | Daily Mail Online

Click the image to open in full size.

A very interesting video presentation on the history of the Dulmial village by Dr Malik grandson of Captain Malik Mohammed at University of Nottingham.



And yes we should openly celebrate the bravery and sacrifice of these men.
PaKeeza is offline  
Old August 3rd, 2015, 05:45 PM   #20
Citizen
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Doha
Posts: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomarRajput View Post
Majority of these guys were from poor villages and this was the only souce of income for many of the individuals. One of my direct ancestors fought for the British before defecting during the 1857 mutiny.

That's interesting about your ancestor. What's his story after the 1857 uprising?
SkullCrusher is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
army, british, cross, indian, victoria, winners



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Redcoat-saw Stockport Victoria Cross winner in Pendennis War and Military History 1 May 1st, 2015 03:22 PM
Martial race and British-Indian Army SSDD War and Military History 0 September 22nd, 2014 01:53 PM
The Victoria Cross Triceratops War and Military History 35 July 19th, 2014 05:44 PM
Victoria Cross vs Iron Cross redFusilier War and Military History 26 August 10th, 2011 03:40 PM
When the metal runs out: Victoria Cross Lawnmowerman War and Military History 27 July 30th, 2011 05:55 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.