an american friend of biases of Vandervort of Journal of Military History USA
Analyzing Quixotic and Myopic views of so called leading western analysts about the USA and NATO failure in Afghanistan https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09TN493BV/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_R8Y2HQVS7XAPRG21V004 via @amazon
Theo Farrell's Book "Unwinnable" Critically Examined and Reviewed by Agha H A... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09TRKYVF5/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_TGSBDJDA275QA41FVC7K via @amazon
an american friend of biases of Vandervort of Journal of Military History USA
To
04/03/08 at 5:40 PM
Agha Sahib
I am in deed fine and hope you are too.
I am sorry that Vandervort did not
publish my review of your book, even
though he promised that he would.
I tried talking to him but he seemed
reluctant to talk, just promised the
review would come out in the Spring
edition of the Journal.
What are you doing these days and
are you still in Kabul? From what
I can gather the US preence in
Afghanistan is wearing very thin,
just hope whomever is elected
this Fall will have enough
intelligence to get us out of
there and Iraq since we
have no business in either country.
If it comes up, please let people
there know that not all
Americans are like Bush and
his bunch of henchmen,
in fact, a lot of us do
respect other people
nor do we fear them
like the American
Right Wing fanatics.
Well, I have to get off to
work so must close.
Best regards
to you my friend
Don
Journal of Military History , USA and its biases-1999 to 2008
Journal of Military History , USA and its biases-1999 to 2008
Agha .H.Amin
In 1995 I became a member of the Society of Military History of the USA.
In 1996 I specially travelled to the US to attend the Annual meeting of the SMH at Marriot Hotel Rosslyn , Arlington Virginia.
It was a great experience attending the meeting co hosted by CIA history staff.
However in 1999 I was disappointed to note that the SMH like any society had deep biases.
I had sent them a very painstakingly researched article on the British reverse at Chillianwallah.However they refused to publish it over flimsy reasons.
The article was published by Defence Journal in mid 2000.
The article with maps will now be a part of a book beinng published in the US this year dealing with Sikh Wars.
My second experience of biases of JMH and SMH was when I critiqued Professor .
Letter to JMH-Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab-Intellectual Dishonesty-JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY USA-NOT PUBLISHING CRITICISM
Views on Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab
Letter to JMH August 2000-**Tan Tai-Yong, 'An imperial home front: Punjab and the F irst World War', Journal of Military History , vol. 64 (2000).
The Journal declined to publish the letter over excuses that it was lengthy.Not even a summary was accepted.
In 2001 however the journal published my letter in almost full so I thought the biases were over ! But that was wishful thinking.
The Journal of Military History published an article in its 2001 issue which implied that Muslims were in significant number in Bengal Army that rebelled in 1857.I sent them a letter challenging the assertions but the letter that the JMH published ommitted my major criticism thus robbing my letter of its essence.
Coercion through Leniency: British Manipulation of the Courts- Martial System in the Post-Mutiny Indian Army, 1859-1913, Journal of Military History, 65, 937-64
http://natural-beauty-pavocavalry.blogspot.com/2013/02/coercion-through-leniency-british.html
After this incident I decided that it was a waste to write any letter to the JMH although I subscribed to the journal till 2008.
In 2005-6 an American friend of mine decided to write a review of my book for the JMH .Initially they agreed but later what happened was an eye opener in human biases of the worst type !
http://natural-beauty-pavocavalry.blogspot.com/2012/10/biases-of-journal-of-military-history.html
Biases of Journal of Military History of USA
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Re: Greetings
Tuesday, 4 March, 2008 17:39
From:
To:
"Military and Security Review" <abcd@yahoo.com>
Agha Sahib
I am in deed fine and hope you are too. I am sorry that Vandervort did not publish my review of your book, even though he promised that he would. I tried talking to him but he seemed reluctant to talk, just promised the review would come out in the Spring edition of the Journal.
What are you doing these days and are you still in Kabul? From what I can gather the US preence in Afghanistan is wearing very thin, just hope whomever is elected this Fall will have enough intelligence to get us out of there and Iraq since we have no business in either country.
If it comes up, please let people there know that not all Americans are like Bush and his bunch of henchmen, in fact, a lot of us do respect other people nor do we fear them like the American Right Wing fanatics.
Well, I have to get off to work so must close.
Best regards to you my friend
Don
Letter to JMH-Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab-Intellectual Dishonesty-JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY USA-NOT PUBLISHING CRITICISM
Rate This
Letter to JMH-Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab-Intellectual Dishonesty-JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY USA-NOT PUBLISHING CRITICISM
Views on Impact of British Imperial Policy on West Punjab
Letter to JMH August 2000-**Tan Tai-Yong, 'An imperial home front: Punjab and the F irst World War', Journal of Military History , vol. 64 (2000).
A.H Amin
June 2000
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY
SOCIETY OF MILITARY HISTORY
VMI VIRGINIA
WHEN IT COMES TO CRITICISM THE AMERICANS DONT ACCEPT IT.THEY ARE MORE UNTOLERANT THAN THE NAZIS.
Sir,I was deeply impressed by the excellent article by Letter to JMH August 2000-**Tan Tai-Yong, 'An imperial home front: Punjab and the F irst World War', Journal of Military History , published in your journal vol. 64 (2000). Journal of Military History,Society of Military History ,VMI , Lexington ,Virginia , the readers who have a pretty vague idea about thesubcontinent and may form outwardly correct but essentially erroneousconclusions, which may be unfair to Punjab's role in Indo Pak history.I may add that my intention in making these points is in no way toprove that the worthy author does not know his subject. Indeed asearlier stated, I have been deeply impressed by his grasp of Indianhistory and some very thought provoking remarks that he has made aboutthe civil military relations in Punjab. The author has done anexcellent job despite the fact that it is no mean job to understandPunjab history while being based away from there.Firstly the politics of Punjab right from the advent of the Musliminvaders in the tenth century was highly complicated. It was thisparticular situation which played the most significant role in Punjab'sremaining loyal in First World War rather than all British measures.The British it may be noted inherited the situation once they annexedPunjab in 1849. They exploited it to full advantage. Punjab wasinitially a Hindu majority province in the tenth century. By theseventeenth century it became a Muslim majority area as a result ofefforts of Muslim missionaries. This has been well covered by variousBritish authors like "The Preaching of Islam" by the famous ProfessorT.W Arnold of Magdalene College, a distinguished figure of the "Schoolof Oriental Studies" at the University of London (Page-197 – Aligarh -The First Generation – David Lelyveld-Princeton University-1978). Thefoundation of the Sikh religion in the early sixteenth century by GuruNanak (1469-1538) and his successors further complicated the communalequation. The Sikhs a purely Punjabi religion came in conflict with theMuslim Mughal Government at Delhi from the period 1581-1606(Refers-page-245-Cambridge History of India-The Mughal Period). Theywere ruthlessly persecuted from 1606 to 1799 by first the Mughals till1748 and then by the Afghan raider Ahmad Shah Abdali. The Sikhsretaliated most resolutely and brilliantly and resorted to guerrillawarfare as a result of which they became masters of Muslim majorityPunjab by 1809 under the brilliant Ranjit Singh. The US readers maynote that the Sikh number never exceeded the figure of 10.5% of thetotal population of Punjab. (Census Report of Punjab-1881-Lahore.Pages-14 & 15-David Lelyveld-Op Cit and Page-8- Prelude toPartition-David Page-Oxford University Press-Karachi-1987). The Sikhswhose holy places had been desecrated by the Muslims during the periodof conflict from 1606-1748 retaliated by turning many Muslim mosquesinto stables and military stores magazines during their rule, whichlasted, from 1799-1849. Once the English East India Company gotinvolved in the Second Sikh War the Muslim feudals who were initiallySikh vassals like the Taiwan's etc now defected to the British side andplayed an active role in assisting the British in the final conquest ofPunjab. The Punjab Muslims about 54% of the province as it was in 1919welcomed the British conquest of Punjab and hailed it. The Britishfollowed a clever policy of rehabilitating the Sikhs and also restoringMuslim places of worship. A subtle development followed. The Sikhs andMuslims competed with each other in loyalty to the British, the Sikhsin order to regain a part their lost total dominance and the Muslims togain their due share in terms of share in the population which had beendenied to them since 1799. It was this complex equation that ensuredthat Punjab stayed loyal in 1857 and in WW One. The evidence aboutMuslim Sikh hatred may be gauged from the 1947 riots in which at leasta million people were killed in Punjab once the British left India. ThePunjabi Hindus who were about 33.46% of the population gained the mostright from 1606 till 1947. Initially they stayed loyal to the Mughalsand retained their prosperous status. Later the Sikhs found the Hindusbetter subjects than the Muslims and patronized them. Under the Britishalso the Hindus being a largely urban community gained the maximumadvantages accruing from Western education and commerce and stood outas the richest and most educated community of Punjab in 1947.A word about the observation on page-409-that the status of the ruralnotables in Punjab did not deteriorate like that of their counterpartsin United Provinces (UP). This was a different story. The UP Taluqdarsgained as much out of British rule as the Punjabi feudals. After allthe province stood second after Punjab in recruitment drive in thearmy. The decline of the United Provinces feudals started only after1947 once the urban dominated Indian National Congress instituted landreforms that deprived these feudals of a large part of their land. Thedifference between Punjab and UP was the fact that UP by virtue ofhaving been colonized some 73 to 46 years (depending on the region)earlier than the Punjab had a much larger literacy (Western Education)rate and a much larger Hindu middle and independent professional andbusiness class which was educated and the feudals despite continuouspatronage by the British failed to do as well in Punjab in theelections. In addition the province as compared to Punjab had a muchlarger industrial base and thus a very large industrial worker class.The Punjabi feudals had little future in Pakistan too since themajority province East Pakistan was not feudal dominated. However, thePunjabi feudals by combining with the civil military elite of WestPakistani origin coerced the East Pakistanis to renounce their actualmajority in 1956 and thus ensured that the feudal hold was retained inPakistan. They also collaborated with all Pakistani militarygovernments and maintained their pre-1947 hold.It is stated in the article that "Yet, despite all of this, thecolonial state in the Punjab seemed to have emerged in 1919 very muchintact and unweakened in any way". It did not happen this way. Britishrepressive policies in Punjab brought them in conflict with the moreaware urban populations of cities between Rivers Jhelum and Sutlej as aresult of which the British were confronted with the first seriousanti-British political agitation in Punjab as a result of which martiallaw was imposed in Punjab. Property worth many millions was destroyedor looted (including an American missionary's house and his mission'sexcellent hospital which was giving free treatment to the poor inChuhar Kanna). (Refers-Page-271- "Disorders InquiryCommittee-1919-1920-Report" – British Perspective-Volume Two-Superintendent Government of India Press-Calcutta-1920). Amritsar citywas handed over to the army where at least 379 peaceful demonstratorswere killed (Refers-Page-187-1919 Disorders Inquiry Committee Report)by the British-Indian troops, communications all over the province wereattacked (Refers-Page-railway stations were attacked and Gujranwalatown was bombed by the Royal Air Force. Summary Military courts wereset up which sentenced 108 people to be executed out which at least 23were maintained while remaining were converted to transportation forlife to the Andaman Islands! (Refers-Page-235-1919 Disorders InquiryCommittee Report-Op Cit). At least 258 people as per official reportwere sentenced to be flogged from 5 to 30 times (Page-231-1919Disorders Inquiry Committee report) and a large number were publiclyflogged with posteriors naked ( I can send you some photographs if youlike). Other punishments like crawling in the streets rather thanwalking were imposed on common people! In short a province that hadbeen most loyal to the Empire was handled so injudiciously by two hotheaded Irishmen i.e. Governor Michael O Dwyer and Brigadier Dyer thatthe British lost a great part of the goodwill that had been createdthrough tangible well meaning and just measures of so many Britishersfrom 1849 till 1919! Such was the Punjabi indignation that Michael ODwyer the hero of the article was shot to death by a Punjabi student (IT HAD TO BE A PUJABI SIKH, ALTHOUGH THE SAME RACE BUT DIFFEENT RELIGION AS PUNJABI MUSLIMS WERE QUITE HOPELESS POLITICALLY)studying engineering in London in 1940! The Punjabi Sikh student who was hangedwithin a month stated at his trial that he was avenging JallianwallaFiring and the outrages committed on Dyers orders in 1919. The urbanpopulation was alienated and the anti-British congress emerged as thesecond largest party in the 1936 elections. The Britishpolicy was efficient but short sighted and in the long run failed aslater events proved. The Punjab disturbances of 1919 shook theirconfidence and certainly weakened their hold on India. In Second WorldWar their recruiting drive in Punjab was based on the slogan ofself-rule and was a negation of all imperialist ideals! The Duke ofConnaught on eve of inauguration of the Indian Legislature stated that"the shadow of Amritsar lengthened over the fair face of India"(Refers-Page-347-India-A Modern History-T.G.P Spear-University ofMichigan-Reprinted India-1989).There is another important point that the writer has missed. Punjab asa province was a British creation. There were at least four differentethnic groups in Punjab. The Punjabis in the areas between Indus andSutlej and Jamna rivers in the northern half of Punjab, the Hindustanienclave of Ambala division which was not Punjabi, the Seraiki speakingareas of the south, again distinct from Punjabis and the pastoralBaloch tribes in the southern part of the province. The majorrecruitment took place only in two of these four ethnic groups i.e thePunjabis and the Hindustani districts, which had been transferred toPunjab as a punishment for having taken part in the rebellion of 1857.Chhottu Ram who belonged to this region was not a Punjabi. Then therewas another major motivation in joining the army i.e. economic. Thismotivation had an important region specific characteristic, which hasnot been described by the author. This was confined only to districtswith rain irrigated and barren lands north of river Jhelum includingnorthern part of Shahpur and one subdivision of District Gujrat whichis south of river Jhelum, or to the Hindustani districts (Hissar,Rohtak Gurgaon and large parts of Karnal) of the south east part whichconsisted of the most barren and non-productive land of the province.The areas south of these rivers were less keen in contributing recruitsfor the fighting arms. Thus Lahore district's performance was mostpathetic; keeping in view the fact that it was population wise one ofthe biggest districts of Punjab did not contribute as many recruits asexpected. Thus the British report of Services Rendered by the Lahoredistrict observed that "As compared with other districts the recruitingactivities of Lahore district were not as good as could be desired. Thevillagers in the neighbourhood of Lahore city did not readily enlist inthe combatant ranks, they made too good a living as daily labourer inand about the city to think of entering the service" (Refers-ShortRecord of the War Services Rendered by the Lahore District-1914-1919-Compiled in the Deputy Commissioner's Office, Lahore, Punjab-Printed atMufeed I Aam Press-Lahore-1919-Punjab Public Library-World War OneSection-Lahore).There was a very important qualitative motivational difference in themotivation to join the army in the Sikhs and the Punjabis, which shouldhave been pointed out. The Sikh motivation to join the army had adefinite link with their minority status. This produced in them anintense feeling to improve their political and economic standingvis-a-vis the two larger groups i.e. the Punjabi Muslims and Hindus.Thus the Sikhs despite being only around 10.5% contributed 88,000combatants to the army while the Muslims despite being a 54% groupcontributed only 136,000 recruits! This had two reasons first was theSikh preponderance in fighting arm units before the war over thePunjabi Muslims as well as their feeling of relative insecurity as aminority community. Despite all this loyalty the Sikh quota wasrelatively reduced after the war because of the significant role thatsome Sikhs had played in the Ghadar Movements. Here it would beinteresting for the American readers to note that it was the liberalinfluence of USA which induced the Sikhs who had settled in Californiato embark on the Ghadar Movement. The Ghadar party had its base in theUS West region, where it was founded on 21 April 1913 at Astoria(Oregon State) by Punjabi immigrants (mostly Sikh who had reachedCalifornia as farm labourers or exiles before WW One) Refers-Page 262-ADictionary of Modern Indian History-Parshotam Mehra-Oxford UniversityPress-Madras-1985).The author did not discuss the role of the British system of classcomposition of Indian units in preventing rebellion. The same is truefor the activities of the Ghadar Party activists in the army andcertain military mutinies in units recruited from races inhabitingPunjab and their effect on the class composition of the post-1918Indian Army have also not been discussed. The British were greatlyhelped in the mixed class composition of Indian Army to which they hadresorted from the period 1864-1885. This system played a major part inpreventing mutiny in the Indian Army. Under this system the vast bulkof cavalry and infantry units consisted of different companies ofvarious classes in any single unit. Like a unit with two Sikh and twoPunjabi Muslim Companies. A unit with a Pathan Muslim and a Dogra HinduSquadron etc. This ensured that the Muslims would not combine with theSikhs and the Sikhs would be too eager to report in case the Muslimswere up to something nasty! This system proved a success in WW One. Onthe other hand the experiment of having one-class units failed. Thus129 Baluchis which was one of the very few "All Muslim Units" was madea mixed class unit after the war. This happened since many of itsPathans defected to the German lines in France. The 15 Lancers whichwas an "All Muslim Unit" was disbanded after the war since its PathanMuslim Squadrons resisted orders to fight the Turks in Mesopotamia. The5th Light Infantry which was an "All Muslim Unit" with two companies ofRanghar Muslims from Punjab province mutinied en masse at Singapore in1915 and was disbanded after the war. Thus after the war with theexception of one infantry unit all fighting arm units were made mixedclass units. The Ghadar Party infiltrators penetrated Indian Army anddid partially succeed in subverting 23rd Punjab Cavalry (this scribesunit) where at least 12 soldiers were court martialled and executed(Refers-Page-141-An Account of the Ghadar Conspiracy-1913-15-F.CIsemonger and J. Slattery-Lahore-1919 and Page-8-A Short History of 11Cavalry (Frontier Force-Lieut Colonel Mohammad Khalid-PrivatelyPublished-Quetta-1999-Copy held by this scribe).Later research proved that the most crucial role was played by thepre-war existing Indian Army in October-December 1914 in Ypres areawhere the British Second Corps was at its last gasp at Ypres at a timewhen in words of the official British historian, "The position wascritical, for the allies were outnumbered and outgunned. There was noprospect for several days while it was known that the enemy wasbringing up large bodies of troops from the east" (Page-23-The IndianCorps in France-Lieutenant Colonel J.W.B Merwether and Right HonourableSir Frederick Smith-John Murray-Ablemarle Street-London-1919.). Thereinforcements later sent played a significant but not as decisive arole as that by the Indian Corps at Ypres in October-December 1914.The real reason why Punjab responded to the British war effort lay infour factors. Firstly, an excellent British policy to bring prosperityin Punjab by excavating canals which was initiated in 1852. Recruitmentto the army in increased numbers from 1857, and grant of lands asreward of war services was initiated in 1858 and brought greatprosperity to the provinces populace residing in the barren poor andnon-productive regions of the northern and south eastern districts ofPunjab. Secondly, the extreme political backwardness of Punjab in termsof education by virtue of being the last region to be captured by theBritish and being under hold of feudal lords who discouraged spread ofWestern education. This system enabled the feudal lords to act asrecruiting agents for their own personal ends. The disturbances of 1919it may be noted took place in the canal-irrigated areas and in citieswith the more aware and educated urban population.Thirdly, the economic factor of getting land as a reward for warservices also played a major role in the motivation to get recruited.This again was true for the people from the barren districts. Finallyit was the complex communal divide of the province with various ethnicand religious groups and the sharp urban rural divide with the vastbulk of the illiterate and poor rural population under total dominationof feudal lords and the extremely small intensely nationalistic andanti-British educated urban population further reinforced by the highlyaware and over enthusiastic idealistic but highly unrealistic US andCanadian Punjabi Sikh and Hindu Indian community.The negative result of the whole affair for the British was the factthat too many expectations were aroused. The Indians believed in vainthat India for its war services will "take a place among the nationsbesides Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but India was bitterlydisappointed" as one Britisher admitted. (Refers-Page-411-A Matter ofHonour-Philip Mason-Jonathan Cape and Bedford-London-1974) Once theseexpectations were not fulfilled disturbances started in India and thesestarted from Punjab which had suffered the most in terms of casualtiesin the War in 1919. The foundation of modern anti-British politicalmass agitation was thus laid in 1919. The British were forced tointroduce legislative government, forced to grant Indians commissionsin the Armed Forces which the military establishment had successfullyresisted from 1757 to 1917. In short the price that they paid was tooheavy and counter-productive. Michael O Dwyer the hot blooded Irishmanmishandled everything.India in 1919 was an explosive place. While about 60,000 Indiansoldiers had died in WW One, some sixteen million Indians during thesame period had died of Influenza ! This was a greater number thantotal dead in all countries in WW One due to the war !(Refers-Page-155-English History-1914-45-A.J.P Taylor-PenguinBooks-England-1977). The seeds of the anti British Indian politics wereplanted by Michael O Dwyer and Dyer through out of proportionenthusiasm in the recruiting drive and in unduly repressive measures in1919. The British held on to India for 28 more years but they had lostthe goodwill and great admiration for their policies in Punjab sopainstakingly planted by a long list of British administrators from1849 to 1914 through justice and fair play it takes many decades togrow a forest but just one matchstick to burn the work of centuries.How do I sum it up as a Pakistani? The only gainers in the wholeprocess were not the common men in Punjab but the Punjabi Muslimfeudals who have survived till todate and even today constitute animportant political force in Pakistani politics. They fooled theBritish and the Pakistani masses whose leaders they became after 1947.These Punjabi feudals served the Sikhs even when Sikhs used the Muslimmosques as stables! They switched over to the British side once theSikh State was destroyed in 1849. They served the British once theBengal Army under a Muslim leadership rebelled in 1857. They served theBritish in WW One and Two and got huge economic rewards in return.About three years before Pakistan's creation they switched on to theMuslim League a largely urban dominated party in 1944-47 and pushed therelatively more enlightened Punjabi Muslim urban elite aside ! In theperiod 1951-58 they betrayed the Muslim League and joined the civilmilitary bureaucratic clique of Pakistan. Todate their achievementsinclude collaboration with all martial law governments and dominance ofall democratically elected governments of Pakistan including thepresent military government! I am a great admirer of late AbrahamLincoln but I must admit as the Punjabi Muslim feudals have proved thatsometimes some people manage to fool all the people all the time!
Coercion through Leniency: British Manipulation of the Courts- Martial System in the Post-Mutiny Indian Army, 1859-1913, Journal of Military History, 65, 937-64
Coercion through Leniency: British Manipulation of the Courts- Martial System in the Post-Mutiny Indian Army, 1859-1913, Journal of Military History, 65, 937-64,October 2001
Selective distortion of criticism by Journal of Military History USA
In an article titled
Coercion through Leniency: British Manipulation of the Courts- Martial System in the Post-Mutiny Indian Army, 1859-1913
On page 951 of the subject article he stated that Muslims comprised 45 % of Indian Army which is factually incorrect.The references that he cited i.e Roberts letters and some house proceedings also do not prove so.
When I wrote a letter to editor to the Journal of Military History of VMI,USA the editors ommitted this most serious criticism and instead published my letter in the journal retaining my minor criticism of the subject of flogging in Indian Army.
THE JMH DELAYED PUBLISHING MY LETTER FOR MORE THAN AN YEAR. FINALLY THEY PUBLISHED IT WITH THE 45 % PART.BUT AGAIN IN REPLY KAUSHIK ROY HAD NO DEFENCE TO OFFER FOR HIS TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT IN THE 2001 ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN JMH USA THAT MUSLIMS WERE 45 % OF BENGAL ARMY THAT REBELLED.
SO MUCH FOR LOW CALIBRE OF MILITARY HISTORICAL RESEARCH IN USA.
This article had serious BASIC FOUNDATION ERRORS SINCE KAUSHIK ROYS
WHOLE PREMISE was FALSE .
"DESPOTISM OF THE REGIMENTAL OFFICERS WAS RESPONSIBLE
FOR DISINTEGRATION OF LOYALTY TO A LARGE SCALE IN 1857." (REFERS PAGE-940 , The Journal of Military History,Volume 65, Number 4,October 2001
As a matter of FACT British East India Company was FAR MORE LENIENT THAN KAUSHIK ROY DIRECTLY AND JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY OF USA AS AN ACCESSORY TO MURDER OF HISTORY IS TRYING TO PROVE IN THIS ARTICLE. AND KAUSHIK ROY CITES NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT BRITISH COMPANY WAS "DESPOTIC" as HE FALSELY CLAIMS LIKE A GOOD BENGALI AGITATOR AND AS A BAD MILITARY HISTORIAN ! AND CHARACTERS LIKE VANFERVORT AND HIS NAIEVE TEAM OVERLOOK KAUSHIK ROYS UNSUBSTANTIATED NONSENSE.
KAUSHIK ROY IN THIS ARTICLE FALSELY CLAIMS THAT BENGAL ARMY THAT REBELLED IN 1857 WAS 45 % MUSLIM BUT NAIEVE JOURNAL OF MILITARY HISTORY OF USA OVERLOOKS IT ! TO THEM THIS IS NO FALSE STATEMENT EVEN THOUGH KAUSHIK FAILS TO SUPPORT IT BY ANY CONCRETE AND PRECISE REFERENCE !
BELOW DOCUMENT FROM A 1835 PUBLICATION PROVES CLEARLY THAT BRITISH IN INDIA WERE FAR MORE LENIENT WITH INDIAN TROOPS THAN WITH THEIR OWN BLOOD I.E EUROPEANS :----
Agha.H.Amin,Major (Retired)
Comments
Post a Comment
Only substantial and serious comments will be accepted .