| Empire, Faith and Kinship : Sikh Prisoner of War |
|
|
|
| Written by Amandeep Madra | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 29 August 2007 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The fighting qualities of the Sikh soldier in battle are well established and universally spoken of in the highest regard by friends and foe alike. However, one aspect of combat that is probably the most overlooked in Sikh history is the plight of the prisoners of war, the subject of this rare image. It was published in a German postcard series that showed the different types of Indian soldier—Sikhs, Punjabi Muslims, Brahmins and Gurkhas—captured by the Germans during the Great War. At first glance, this appears to be an odd subject matter for a postcard series. Yet placed in the context of the typical German soldier’s belief that the Indian soldier was a superior fighting man, its true purpose becomes clear: to counter such a belief by instilling confidence in the ordinary German trooper who would inevitably meet the dreaded Indian soldier in the battlefield. Very few accounts of Sikh prisoners of war have been documented, but one that makes up for the dearth is the subject of a book called Hira Singh by Talbot Mundy (1918). It opens with the following amazing report from a newspaper: “One hundred Indian troops of the British Army have arrived at Kabul, Afghanistan, after a four months’ march from Constantinople. The men were captured in Flanders by the Germans and were sent to Turkey in the hope that, being Mohammedans, they might join the Turks. But they remained loyal to Great Britain and finally escaped, heading for Afghanistan. They now intend to join their regimental depot in India, so it is reported.” (New York Times, July 1915.) In his preface, the author mentions this newspaper story which was the inspiration for the book and continues with a tribute to the Sikh soldiers whose story he tells: “I take leave to dedicate this book to Mr. Elmer Davis, through whose friendly offices I was led to track down the hero of these adventures and to find the true account of them even better than the daily paper promised. “Had Ranjoor Singh and his men been Muhammadans their accomplishment would have been sufficiently wonderful. For Sikhs to attempt what they carried through, even under such splendid leadership as Ranjoor Singh’s, was to defy the very nth degree of odds. To have tried to tell the tale otherwise than in Hira Singh’s own words would have been to varnish gold. Amid the echoes of the roar of the guns in Flanders, the world is inclined to overlook India’s share in it all and the stout proud loyalty of Indian hearts. May this tribute to the gallant Indian gentlemen who came to fight our battles serve to remind its readers that they who give their best, and they who take, are one.” | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
projectnaad
said:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| amazing! |
john mayers
said:
| What daftness displayed by the these men! Their country was under the clutches of foreigners and they managed to remain loyal to their foreign rulers, what the hell was going on? Loyalty to brutish foreigners who were responsible for Jallianwallah Bagh Masacare and many more massacare that have been deleted from the history books and media! It is not only daftness on the part of these soldiers but also an insult to the country they originated from. Their rulers killed (their own) sikh people such as mothers, fathers, husbands, and children while they ruled them and even disposed of their Maharajah's son, Dilip Singh at the age of 12. The soldiers don't deserve commendations but condemnations for being so foolish as to loose everything to the foreign white invaders and rulers. We sincerely hope these people the sikhs have learnt something from their past. It appears lessons are very hard to learn for these peoples because they need brains! |
Kamal
said:
| @john mayers: I am sure that if sikhs betrayed the British army, you would have called them traitor. I dont think all the bristish foreigners were bad (its been told to me by granddad) and I am not saying that all were good also (clearly some were racist and did have no compession and mercy). From what I have heard is that sikhs were well treated and looked after by the british. So please don't think from one-side, take all the aspacts into account. |
Hargurmit
said:
| That indeed is the tragedy Mr. John Mayers. A complete dichotomy. Is it because of economic reasons? Is it being honor bound to fight for ones employer? I really dont have an answer. The same situation prevails today, with the most notable example being of the attack on Darbar Sahib (Golden temple) led by part sikh officers..Dont have answers for this. But very happy that you shared your analysis with us.thank you |
jagar singh
said:
| mr myers forgets that these are soldiers,not fighting the british but with the british.in any case ,they could not merge with muslims in turkey.nor could they be expected to help those muslim rulers back to rule them who were so cruel to them.it was a temorary truce with the lesser evil. |
Jallwinder Gill
said:
| John Mayers, I have only one thing to say to you. I don't know who you are ie whether British, Australian or New Zealander, but to make comments like the ones you have just made are not unusual from educated and sensible people. Yes, you are right that it was absurd to be loyal to one's foreign rulers particularly when these foreign rulers had inflicted so much pain to the sikhs of India by killing them and taking their Maharaja's son back to britain. Yes, it is wicked to marry this young son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh to an Arab ie who was not only a muslim and only spoke Arabic, but was also the daughter of an Abynnisian slave girl. The British were known for playing such evil games with the countries they colonized. Whether they were good or bad people, the fact remains they were occupying the country which did not belong to them and how did they manage to do this was by committing atrocities which are beyond anyone's imagination. Why did they employ sikhs to fight their wars? Not. because sikhs made very ferocious soldiers, but to save their own white boys from being killed, that's why. Sikhs could have easily turned the ammunition on their 'foreign rulers' as you termed it, but they didn't. The reasons are very simple. When these very foriegn rulers were fighting the Japanese on the Burmese borders, they employed the sikhs to figh their battle, why, because the value of a sikh soldier's life was virtually zero when compared to the British soldier's life. It all boiled down to economics and the price of a human being. Since India was a slave country and sikhs happened to be her sons, the value of a sikh head was virtually minus zero! When the sikh soldiers were captured by the Japanese on the Burmese borders, the Japs used their heads for 'target practice' meaning, they were stood in a row of twos and threes, and shot at by the Japanese soldiers, to practice target shootings! This was known to the British employers back in India, but did they show any concerns? Your guess is as good as mine! The sikhs were put into different camps to those of the their white counterparts, once they were captured by the Japs. The Japs did not use the heads of the white counterparts for the practice of target shootings, why, because they were the superior race and the rulers of the sikhs! |
Angad Singh
said:
| Why do we accept that our brave SIKH Regiments are refered to as Indian soldiers. Today in India our brave Sikhs history is being diluted to a point where our language is not allowed to be taught in our Punjabi state schools, I refer to Harryana which is now a prodominatly Hindu, and the Punjab is also being diluted. Our Brothers and Sisters/ Aunties and Uncles are still today are being killed,raped and goaled because they are SIKHS. Never forget 1984 our brave Sikh soldiers still suffer today, but thats another issue. The world thinks that Sikhs are from India. Yes India has Sikh Battalians ATTACHED to the Indina army because unlike Jallwinder Gill thinks Sikhs Battalions were wanted by the allied Generals because they were fearless. and the Indian army still wants then today for the same reason (I see just Gill so proberbly ignorent to our NITNEN let alone AMRIT) and all Sikh Soldiers take AMRIT. Many Sikhs won Victoria Crosses World War One and World War Two. I could go on, I sugest to anyone reading this to research our brave fore fathers and teach our chilren the truth and stand and be proud SIKHS that they keep their hair and wear their turbans with pride. We are not INDIANS because our country has been cut in half, never forget that half of the brave Sikhs that gave their life for world peace are still on the Pakistan side. I refuse to be linked just to INDIA I am a SIKH. Also Dont forget, if it wasnt for SIKHS, INDIA would be all MUSLIMS. Last year the first SIKH joined the PAKISTAN ARMY, yes he was a SIKH not an India |
Sat Hari Singh Khalsa
said:
| The fight against the Japanese for Sikh soldiers was just a matter of some bad choices. Yes, the Sikhs had prospered under the British, would they have prospered more as their own kingdom, that's speculation. But the choices were either fight the British and allow the Japanese Empire to take India or fight and keep the Japanese Empire out . The Japanese Empire was bad for Asia and the rest of the world in general. The defeat of the Japanese Empire ended the genocide in china and the occupation of South East Asia. The Japanese Empire killed many of the Indians in South East Asian cities and held Indians in contempt racially, even more than the British. It must be said many of the British admired Indians, especially Sikhs, and studied their culture with many inter-marriages and deep interest in Indian religion etc. So if the Sikhs had rebelled the Japanese would have conquered them, likewise if they followed Gandhi's advice and limited resistance to Ahimsa non-violence. The British promised the soldiers of the Indian Army freedom for India –Dominion status or full independence two years after the war. The War ended mid-August 1945, India won its independence in August of 1945. Ultimately Sikh soldiers fought for Indian independence. It is unfortunate that the Sikhs were not given back their kingdom. In defense of those who fought for the English, the Raj was no doubt better than the often fundamentalist Mughals, and most of the Maharajahs who were often corrupt. It must be stated that during the British rule there was a spiritual renaissance in the Panjab with the Singh Sahibah movement and elsewhere in India. India was united under British rule, railroads built and contact was established with the Western world which many feel opened up the present era of cultural and religious exchange, building the basis for a truly international global civilization. Sathari Singh Harrington |
Harpreet Singh
said:
| To John Mayers, This self styled John Mayers is not agreeing to the way Sikhs fought alongwith British in World wars. What do you suggest Mr Mayers? They should have fought against Allies and alongwith Germans? He says, "Their country was under the clutches of foreigners." Yes, British were foreigners. What about rest of them? How do you decide who is foreigner? 1. Hindu government sitting in Delhi is also foreigner to Punajbis and particularly Sikhs. Although they have a puppet Sikh Prime Minister. 2. Why did Irish fought for English? Weren't Irish fighting for Independence as well. 3. If you are Sindhi Pakistani, you are also ruled by foreign (punjabi) dictator, backed by majority punjabi military. 4. Even during sikh raj, sikhs were only about 15% of population. Weren't rest of the people ruled by foreigner sikhs? You spoke about massacares. Which rule did not have massacares. What about current Indian govt. What happened in Gujrat? What about '84? If Sikhs fought in world wars, that does not mean that they never fought for independence. People who gave their lives fighting against British during freedom struggle were mostly Sikhs. They were shot, hanged, deported. There are countless examples. Mr Mayers, you are just trying to negate the sacrifices made by them during world war by telling them that they were fools fighting in world wars. |
aamsikh
said:
| This is point communists keep on propagating that religion is the cause of all wars,but it never was ,never is and never will be.its always the loyality to the master and never the religion which decides who fights on whose side. Had the British brought in whole lot of soldiers from Britain to defeat and rule India, did not they recruit Hindus,Sikhs and Muslims locally to fight, defeat and rule India.Almost second in command in Akbar's rule was Jai Chand a Hindu,at the same level was Faqir Ajjijudin a muslim in the empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Europe is mostly Christian, have they never faught among themselves,even communists who do not believe in religion, have they never been fighting,even two highly decorated Sikh soldiers Sabeg Singh and Sahbaj Singh were in the army of Muslim ruler,do the Muslim soldiers in Indian army not fighting against Pak army, now even a Sikh young man has joined Pak army, won't he fight against Indian army in case of a war,Shias and Sunnis both muslims are fighting the bloodiest of war of the time in Iraq,Faqir Buddu Shah always faught on the side of Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji, even Guru Gobind Singh Ji faught on the side of Bahadar Shah against his brothers.So religion is never cause of war but it is always made a victim of one and used by lefties to ridicule and take people away from God.So in case of a war its loyality to the cause which determines one's decision. |
Angad Singh
said:
| WJKK WJKF Harppreet Singh Ji we are brothers WJKK WJKF |
Angad Singh
said:
| WJKK WJKF Harpreet Singh Ji. I was very happy and too quick and spelt your name wrong sorry Ji WJKK WJKF |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
