Indian Army News & Discussions - 11 June 2014

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 19 Oct 2014 10:10

Small correction please Raja Bose. Its Gorkha not Gurkha in India and Nepal. Gurkha is a british pronunciation. Gorkha means Gomata rakshak.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Oct 2014 10:19

nath yogi gorakshanath --> gorkha.

trivia : kolkata's chowranghee street (now JLN road) is named after gorakshanath's fellow yogi chowringheenath.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 19 Oct 2014 11:01

The Kings regiments would wear strap under lip and other regiments under chin.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 19 Oct 2014 11:02

I'd really wish folks read up more before passing comments. Sigh!!

Individual Gorkha units will wear the hat in their respective fashions. The 5th (Piffers) wear their chin strap below their lower lip, as opposed to others who wear it under their chin because they are the only 'Royal Gurkha Regiment'. Same reason they wear their lanyards on the right.

Some of the more funny customs and traditions:
1. Officers in one Sikh Regiment have an annual drinking competition during Battle Honours Day with the men, who if they win carry off the colours to the JCO's Mess.
2. One very famous Kumaon unit keeps a goat as its official mascot, with a rank as a Havaldar to boot.
3. In one Parachute Regiment tradition dictates that the Punch be made by the Master of the Punch -blindfolded.
4. To celebrate their most famous battle when they nearly starved to death, an old Cavalry Regiment make their barbeque and 'flavour it' atop their No1 Tank to have the diesel fumes 'enhance' the flavour.

A very famous mural with the 5th during a battle with the Orakzai Tribe.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2014 21:45

Well, not to stir a hornets nest, but what relevance does this chin strap tradition have today. Hope, similar ones are slowly phased out. Seem like Brit public school eccentricities transferred to the "exotic" armies they commanded. But its the IAs call.

member_28797 · Post by **member_28797** » 19 Oct 2014 21:48

Karan M wrote:Well, not to stir a hornets nest, but what relevance does this chin strap tradition have today. Hope, similar ones are slowly phased out. Seem like Brit public school eccentricities transferred to the "exotic" armies they commanded. But its the IAs call.

True, it serves no purpose. I don't get the tradition thing either... why does an independent army of an Independent country need to keep on traditions imposed on them by outsiders? This nehruvian logic needs to go asap. Same with Naval ensignia, revert it back to 2004 design, it looks much cooler.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 19 Oct 2014 22:02

when an unit has 200 years of fighting tradition behind it (f.e), it is understandably loathe to let go of it. the naval ensign thing I agree with though, they should get rid of the st. george's cross.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 19 Oct 2014 22:14

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Small correction please Raja Bose. Its Gorkha not Gurkha in India and Nepal. Gurkha is a british pronunciation. Gorkha means Gomata rakshak.

I thought Gorkhas are called Gorakhas because they are the devotees of Baba Gorakhnath.

member_28797 · Post by **member_28797** » 19 Oct 2014 22:42

SanjayC wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:Small correction please Raja Bose. Its Gorkha not Gurkha in India and Nepal. Gurkha is a british pronunciation. Gorkha means Gomata rakshak.
I thought Gorkhas are called Gorakhas because they are the devotees of Baba Gorakhnath.

Yes that seems accurate, haven't heard of Gomata Rakshak before.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2014 23:04

Rahul M wrote:when an unit has 200 years of fighting tradition behind it (f.e), it is understandably loathe to let go of it. the naval ensign thing I agree with though, they should get rid of the st. george's cross.

Well. things have to change sometime. Their post independence tradition would also speak for itself and should be sufficient by itself. By dropping some pointless colonial stuff, its not really a big deal. I dont get why we have to have units named after colonial era worthies who came to plunder us or underwent some colonial era glorification - hodsons horse, skinners horse etc. This stuff of royal gurkhas etc wearing the lanyard this way or that, because they are "royal", when we kicked the British monarchy out with a size 12 out, some 70 years back, whats the point.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 19 Oct 2014 23:15

Karan,

Good question, something which i myself have pondered a lot about over the years.

Couple of points,

Truth be told the British did give us this Army like most other organisations. To a certain degree almost all military units are marginally obsessive about history and traditions. It seeks to differentiate them and demands their unflinching loyalty to their own men. It is also to inspire the newcomers that they are among a superior body of fighting troops. They have little by way of the more tangible things to show for it otherwise.

Every unit whether raised pre or post Independence has its idiosyncrasies. To an outsider, including other Fauji's these might seem cheeky, weird or even vain but they represent more than just that. For its members it is an acknowledgement of some kind. All their blunders, their hardships and even their victories all rolled into one.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 19 Oct 2014 23:31

+1

to put it simply, it works for them. As the American saying goes... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it..."

Paltan ki izzat, these idiosyncrasies, etc do add to that unique blend which is required to make the faujis feel they are a class apart. Makes them feel that they have the edge over their adversaries

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Oct 2014 23:35

Vaibhav, Ajay, I think my perspective is the fighting ability of our people stands on its own merit and also, their battle honors won't be taken away, by merely consigning some irrelevant names or traditions to the museum. The Brits may have given us an Army, but we have made it post independence into something to be reckoned with, with our own sweat and hard work. The GR or the JAKLI or the Rajputana Rifles - all have their PVCs, MVCs etc now to outshine their VCs and as versus going to war in some dusty part of the world, because the Brits wanted them to.

This thing about the Brits giving us the IA is much the same way, the Brits try to take credit for "giving us a country" or the "railways" or some other stuff. Today, we have an IA coming up with IBGs and Cold Start on its own. RR was a COIN innovation by us, the Indians. Similarly, there must be 1000's of things we have done to stand on our own feet.

I fully support any decision by the Fauj to stand with its own traditions as it so chooses, but these colonial era practices, were originally meant to differentiate the lay Indian civvies from their masters, and with Independent India having had 70 years to make its own way in this world, I'd also believe that time has come for us to start doing things by our own template. Sure adopt, take traditions from here and there (a USN EW squadron is called Garudas after the exceptional vision, the Garuda is stated to have in our epics) but this "royal this, royal that" stuff seems to be a relic of a bygone era as the nation seems to be evolving into something else. Also, from the perspective of pride in the units, I think we Indians dont need the Brits or any colonial tradition to tell us to respect the Gurkhas or the Rajputs or the Marathas or the countless units the IA fields. All these groups earned their martial stripes their own way, the Brits merely coopted them because they were so good.

IMHO, apart from the above, what will differentiate us from our peers is more stuff like Cold Start, and remorseless ruthlessness in the application and art of war (supported by GOI). Nobody really bothers about which US units took apart the RG, but the impression remains of one of overwhelming force, which a conventional force cannot handle easily (if at all). IM(H)O, that is what our end game should be.

Perhaps another two decades from now, we can revisit this discussion and see where we are at.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 19 Oct 2014 23:40

Akshay Kapoor wrote:Small correction please Raja Bose. Its Gorkha not Gurkha in India and Nepal. Gurkha is a british pronunciation. Gorkha means Gomata rakshak.

I know. But the spell correction on device is a western one.

SanjayC · Post by **SanjayC** » 20 Oct 2014 00:11

nik wrote:All three chiefs and PM+Def Minster look fighting fit! That itself is unbelievable.

Afraid of even thinking what the picture would have looked like if Congress had retained power.

It would have looked something like this:

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Oct 2014 01:56

narendranaik wrote:
SanjayC wrote:quote="Akshay Kapoor" Small correction please Raja Bose. Its Gorkha not Gurkha in India and Nepal. Gurkha is a british pronunciation. Gorkha means Gomata rakshak.[/quote

I thought Gorkhas are called Gorakhas because they are the devotees of Baba Gorakhnath.
Yes that seems accurate, haven't heard of Gomata Rakshak before.

Not really. There is a place called Gorkha in central Nepal where the Shahs, last royal family, originated from. The British chose that same name to denote soldiers recruited from across the hilly regions of Nepal to their regiments. They don't come from one place nor are they one homogenous group. There are many ethic groups, each with their own dialects and customs, that make up the "Gorkha/Gurkha" rifles/regiments.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 20 Oct 2014 02:45

Gorkhas are composed of a lot of hill tribes. Its not one single group. Off the top of my head - Rai, Limbu, Gurung, Magar, Chhetri.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 20 Oct 2014 06:32

Karan, these traditions are typically evolutionary in nature, i.e. incremental. As these units get more accolades with newer post-Independence actions, it will get added to their "rich" & "long" history from their POV - they have continued to maintain their marital traditions for 'X'00 years and so on... 1/5 and 2/5 GR had a richer marital tradition (track record) but in recent years some of the other 5 GR units have caught up in terms of their meritorious actions in conflicts

On the idiosyncrasies part, IIRC the 5 GR units would disallow families to participate in some of the events related to Kaal Ratri (Dusshera). Some of the other GR units weren't so orthodox in their outlook. Some of this is to (supposedly) make them feel exclusive even from the parent regiment's other units.

My Dad's unit (which has a battle honour from '71) has now a tradition to felicitate its war heroes in their reunions or milestone events like the raising day. Dad (got a VrC in '71) also makes it a point to visit the unit at that time to share his experiences from the '71 action. He has also shared copies of his War photo album which is now part of the unit's war museum to carry on the legacy.

So, the point is that if these traditions help in whatsoever way to make soldiers proud, motivated & committed to have the edge in a conflict, then why not continue with them. After all, everything is fair in love & war

Karan M wrote: Perhaps another two decades from now, we can revisit this discussion and see where we are at.

+1 to that

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 20 Oct 2014 07:13

narendranaik wrote:
Karan M wrote:Well, not to stir a hornets nest, but what relevance does this chin strap tradition have today. Hope, similar ones are slowly phased out. Seem like Brit public school eccentricities transferred to the "exotic" armies they commanded. But its the IAs call.
True, it serves no purpose. I don't get the tradition thing either... why does an independent army of an Independent country need to keep on traditions imposed on them by outsiders? This nehruvian logic needs to go asap. Same with Naval ensignia, revert it back to 2004 design, it looks much cooler.

Troops fight for their paltan or regiment. All these stupid things that you see, as well as the parties etc which make no sense go on to create the cohesiveness of the unit. Remove them, and you will be surprised at what else you will remove.

Treat this a little differently from the old club being asked to give up the colonial vestiges. Whether we like it or not the Brits knew what goes on to make fighting units tick. Better to take the know it all attitude elsewhere.

schowdhuri · Post by **schowdhuri** » 20 Oct 2014 07:21

Karan M wrote:Vaibhav, Ajay, I think my perspective is the fighting ability of our people stands on its own merit and also, their battle honors won't be taken away, by merely consigning some irrelevant names or traditions to the museum. The Brits may have given us an Army, but we have made it post independence into something to be reckoned with, with our own sweat and hard work. The GR or the JAKLI or the Rajputana Rifles - all have their PVCs, MVCs etc now to outshine their VCs and as versus going to war in some dusty part of the world, because the Brits wanted them to.

This thing about the Brits giving us the IA is much the same way, the Brits try to take credit for "giving us a country" or the "railways" or some other stuff. Today, we have an IA coming up with IBGs and Cold Start on its own. RR was a COIN innovation by us, the Indians. Similarly, there must be 1000's of things we have done to stand on our own feet.

I fully support any decision by the Fauj to stand with its own traditions as it so chooses, but these colonial era practices, were originally meant to differentiate the lay Indian civvies from their masters, and with Independent India having had 70 years to make its own way in this world, I'd also believe that time has come for us to start doing things by our own template. Sure adopt, take traditions from here and there (a USN EW squadron is called Garudas after the exceptional vision, the Garuda is stated to have in our epics) but this "royal this, royal that" stuff seems to be a relic of a bygone era as the nation seems to be evolving into something else. Also, from the perspective of pride in the units, I think we Indians dont need the Brits or any colonial tradition to tell us to respect the Gurkhas or the Rajputs or the Marathas or the countless units the IA fields. All these groups earned their martial stripes their own way, the Brits merely coopted them because they were so good.

IMHO, apart from the above, what will differentiate us from our peers is more stuff like Cold Start, and remorseless ruthlessness in the application and art of war (supported by GOI). Nobody really bothers about which US units took apart the RG, but the impression remains of one of overwhelming force, which a conventional force cannot handle easily (if at all). IM(H)O, that is what our end game should be.

Perhaps another two decades from now, we can revisit this discussion and see where we are at.

Soldiers are not so brave that they can go smiling to their deaths. its the izzat of the unit that keeps them from running, not the national flag, not patriotism etc. Everyone in the army knows this. Not the place for people who do not know to muck around, and convert us into the U.S army (we are already there to some extent due to this kind of needless meddling).

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Oct 2014 09:43

An average soldier in the IA does not think about the world at large like people on BRF can afford to not because of their inablity to do so but primarily because their world view is limited due to their background and also the kind of environment the IA provides for asking questions and reasoning is not something which is encouraged in the armed forces.

I agree with Karan M's views about colonial era practices the forces post independence are too plagued by the same secular narrative as the aam abdul so when an avg. civillian does romanticize the mughal era blissfully blind to it's real face the old afsars in the fauj too quote Winston Churchill and co as if they were an epitome of virtuosity , please note that quite a few who were afsars in post independent IA came from royal families or similar backgrounds who mind you were a part of the British raj . I remember an old topic which we discussed here about the IN flag for instance ; I mean there is no way one can justify that horrifying red cross on the flag we simply have no connection to it but in the name of some flimsy excuse it was re-instated back just because the world view of our forces is very much closed and they refuse to acknowledge the true and ugly side of some of the symbols and signs of their colonial association just to feel happy inside.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 20 Oct 2014 11:21

^^
If you choose to remain trapped in history, there isn't much difference with those you accuse of the same.

The Services much like this nation are not the preserve of one particular religion or clan. Courage, individual or collective comes from a Jat Sikh as much as from a Hindu Garhwali, Kaimkhani Muslim, Naga Christian, Hindu Nairs or Marathas.

Yes Yes, very limited world view indeed.

Anyways, my last post of the topic. No good conducting blue on blue.

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Oct 2014 12:04

If you talk about upholding a tradition you cannot conviniently ignore aspects of history which are unsavoury but more importantly true and mischievously masked when brought up in a conversation. Even amongst the 3 services the IA carries the heaviest colonial baggage and that is partly the reason why it is slowest amongst the three in terms of modernisation .

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 20 Oct 2014 12:15

Question is, do any of the army's various 'eccentricities' in anyway inhibit its ability as a fighting organisation? If not, then revising its customs to reflect 'modernity' is just a form of political correctness.

Take the Gorkhas' lip level chin-strap for example - lets say they were asked to abandon it for the same under chin strap as its sister Gorkha regiments. Following from that the next 'update' should likely be the hats themselves, hardly native to India. To be replaced by...? Berets? Not exactly native to India either. So ideally, you would have all Gurkha servicemen wearing 'Dhaka topis'. Will that strengthen its ties with centuries of Indian Army history, or modern day Nepal? (Alternately, you could dress the Gorkhas in 'safas/pagris', that'll be an 'odd' sight.)

No one can today fault the COAS if he were to opt for a simple beret in lieu of his hat. But he will always choose to wear his hat, with that strap because its more than just a uniform to him. And every soldier and officer wearing the same headgear will see him as one of 'theirs' that made to the highest military rank in the land. That's the regimental system for you.

As for why the regimental system is still important, I would suggest one read up on the history of the Rashtriya Rifles and how much of its effectiveness is owed to its regimental affiliations (and why they were instituted).

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 20 Oct 2014 16:25

^^^ Very well said Viv S. Awesome points.

Yet, the forces will have to change a few things (not the dresses).

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Oct 2014 16:48

Viv S your points are tangential to the discussion , how to wear a cap and such stuff is not what is being talked about .

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 20 Oct 2014 17:42

Things have always evolved.

I agree that it is the Indian Maratha, Sikh, Pahari, Jat or Madrasi etc bravery that won the wars of yesteryear not the British. Our traditions of valour range back centuries but we did not build upon our victories to build a long lasting nation state. We had the valour, the invader used it as a coherent political force ! That is why most of our traditions are from battles fought by the British army. But the soul is Indian. Malkhamb in the MLI and Bombay sappers, a distinct Sikh entity in Sikh units, the ghee obsession in the Jat paltans etc. I can go on and on.

As a people we also do not respect and record our history properly nor do we have a strategic mindset. The problems Francois Gautier is facing building the Shivaji memorial is a stark reminder of that. So if we want more of our Indian traditions, lets create them by fighting and winning huge victories, being proud of our civilization and educating our people on that. Ultimately the victor writes history and the future so lets focus on the important things and build that capability and intention. And if any of you can help Francois, please do.

Ps... a soldier does fight for the izzat of the platan but that is intrinsically and irrevocably linked to the country and civilization. Anybody who says otherwise does not understand the ethos of the armed forces. Or has never had a jawan ask them 'sahab main kis ke liye lad raha hoon'.

Pps .... I agree that the words royal must go at some stage. But the dress does not have to. The naval insignia must change. Lets get one from our rich naval history.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 20 Oct 2014 17:43

negi wrote:Viv S your points are tangential to the discussion , how to wear a cap and such stuff is not what is being talked about .

I disagree Negi. He has given an important illustration of the need and meaning of tradition. What we need is to build a rich tapestary of our own traditions.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Oct 2014 23:23

Akshayji, well said. It becomes tiresome after a while to hear the same old canard that it's only the paltan and regimental Izzat which motivate our jawans and patriotism, culture, faith are hoary things beyond their understanding. They are factors but the average Indian Japan believes in his motherland as well and fights for it.

Coming to the second point, My concern or rather wish is that the valour of our people be recognised as is as versus being tied to what the Brits devised with their mix of whatever worked for them and per their desire to balance out one group vs the other.

Basically your post said everything that needs to be said, irrespective of my post.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 20 Oct 2014 23:43

'Paltan ki izzat' itself may have been a germ introduced to 'help' the BIA. Who knows, with the loss of history even the evidence to prove it was so, would be dead and gone by now.

Paltan ki izzat sound like a good way of ensuring the less educated news rationed Jawan would get deterred from asking about their own izzat and that of their womenfolk and their country. So a repeat of 1857 would never happen. All to fight elsewhere on the planet, even while the people in those armies could nothing for their own country.

Just look at what happened when just a few sailors got their act together, only so slightly during the Bombay Mutiny. Imagine what would have happened if every jawan had started walking the same talk.

......................

Accha, if they do not tie it around their chin. Kya dharti phat jayegi ya aasman nigal jayega. Kya ho jayega?

Very poetic it is, 'Paltan ki izzat'. Reminds me of that poem An Irish pilot forsees his death. That poem too was very palla-jhaad emotions ridden nonsense. Written by a man who does not seems to have fought and had crazy political ideas.

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 20 Oct 2014 23:47

^I guess if references to past acclaims are important (and indeed they are important), the reference should be to the exploits of Shivaji, Peshwas, Samudragupta, Cholas, Maharana Pratap and other such warriors from our history. Our soldiers are more likely to be motivated by this association rather than by references to the British officers because they are sons of the soil and because they have been hearing stories and songs about them growing up in villages and towns. IMVHO.

anchal · Post by **anchal** » 20 Oct 2014 23:48

True that, even a Marxist historian like Bipan Chandra admits that regimentation in BIA was introduced to prevent any pan-Indian feeling among the troops; especially after the Ghadar. In fact, if I recall correctly tribal uprisings in the last decade of 19th century were crushed primarily by native soldiers

And that British were determined to leave India only after the Naval mutiny in Bombay since ultimate physical security of 30,000 odd Britishers could not be guaranteed by the BIA. Sarkari historians twist is entirely different story

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 20 Oct 2014 23:53

anchal wrote:; especially after the Ghadar. In fact, if I recall correctly tribal uprisings in the last decade of 19th century were crushed primarily by native soldiers

Most Hindu and Muslaman regiments in Ganga Yamuna belt had joined the revolutionary war. Sikhs and Gorkhas remained loyal to the British. The siege of Delhi would have been a non-starter if the Sikh kingdoms helped Indians or just even stayed neutral.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 21 Oct 2014 00:01

Let us not get into a martial vs non-martial debate now pls...

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 21 Oct 2014 00:08

One more point, most infantry units are no more single class units except for Sikh Regt, Sikh LI & GR as far as I know. Most are mixed units and they work very well (to dispel any martial etc jazz)

Ashok Sarraff wrote:^I guess if references to past acclaims are important (and indeed they are important), the reference should be to the exploits of Shivaji, Peshwas, Samudragupta, Cholas, Maharana Pratap and other such warriors from our history. Our soldiers are more likely to be motivated by this association rather than by references to the British officers because they are sons of the soil and because they have been hearing stories and songs about them growing up in villages and towns. IMVHO.

Any guesses to the war cry of the MLI...??

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 21 Oct 2014 00:18

Har Har Mahadev, saheb. I am suggesting a more direct reference to Shivaji's battalions and war history. That is go beyond the British regimental history and link more directly with our military traditions. And mixed units worked in ancient times too. E.g., lots of Marathas worked for Nizamshahi and Adilshahis and lots of Rajputs worked for Mughals. So it may still be possible to harken back to native history. Again, IMVHO.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 21 Oct 2014 01:28

Ajay Sharma wrote:Any guesses to the war cry of the MLI...??

War Cry: Bol Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Ki Jai (Say Victory To King Shivaji).

The Maratha Light Infantry

-Ankit

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 21 Oct 2014 01:38

I may be wrong (and thanks for correcting me in that case) but the following link says Har Har Mahadev.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... by_country

Again, my point is we should link the origin, honour, and traditions to our own ancient warriors more directly - battle cries are a good step in that direction, but we should go much deeper than that.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 21 Oct 2014 02:46

Karan,

The whole British practice of having mixed compositions of their choice was preety much thrown out during Partition. When many erstwhile units with Pathans, Hindustani/Punjabi Muslims and Ranghars became Single or Fixed Class once again. Eg: Jats or even Punjabis and most cavalry units. Moreover even regiments perceived to be Single or Fixed Class do have some Mixed Class Battalions and vice-versa.

4 Horse is no longer called as Hodson's Horse for its role in the killing of the Mughal princes.

James Skinner was a mixed Scottish-Rajput himself. The Skinners are a very old military family and have had multiple generations serve in the Army Post Independence including the 65 and 71 wars and even as we speak. The entire family still resides in Mussoorie, hardly your mango anglo-gold raider.

I have just been told that in Dec 1950, Regiments and Corps were allowed by the President of India to retain the right to continue wearing the lanyard on the right in recognition of their combat services. Additionally, the Goverment declared certain Battle Honours as Repugnant due to the role units played. Peace.

Repugnant Battle Honours Indian Army

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2014 05:17

Maj. Sarbjit Singh's "Battle Honors of Indian Army" also lists these repugnant honors.

The new Indian Army is a whole brand new Army.