It actually did considering there existed no bengali regiments or corps during that time ... As bangalis like other central and South Indians were never recruited by the British army... So yea the traditions that Bangladeshi army today follow come from Pak Army regiments .. Each of which had/has its own... Even the pagree this Bangladeshi fellow is wearing is actually a Panjabi Musalman soldiers turban ;
View attachment 364334
Bangladeshi soldier
View attachment 364335
A few Turban styles according to race/region worn by British troops from the subcontinent
View attachment 364338
View attachment 364340 View attachment 364341 View attachment 364342
Unless you think bangalis actually wore Panjabi pagrees during old times.. When they weren't even part of the British army.
Nonsense .. Turbans have always been part of our culture...
Here is a pic of Mir Mahmud II Khan of Kalate State and his soldiers testing a machine gun;
View attachment 364336
A Major of the State of Bhawalpur Army wearing their native cap
View attachment 364337
The British army only accommodated their cultural traditions.
The Europeans never wore turbans rather helmets ...
The British officers of British Indian army adopted the traditions of their regiments .. A British officer of a Panjabi musalman regiment would wear the PM turban and hence forth..
I see that you have completely accepted the 'Martial Race' theory with turbans as part of the requisite headgear (pomp and circumstance). To me - these traditions are a vestige of the British Raj and are shameful reminder of our subservient past. We as a subcontinental entity did not have either the guts or the organizing capability of the Japanese to head off a couple of shiploads of British merchants.
I suggest you read more on the concept of the 'Martial Race' (which was a manipulative tool of the Brits) and not just accept it readily because it complements
some people from the NorthWest region of the subcontinent.
"British general and scholar Lieutenant-General Sir
George MacMunn (1869–1952) noted in his writings "It is only necessary for a feeling to arise that it is impious and disgraceful to serve the British, for the whole of our fabric to tumble like a house of cards without a shot being fired or a sword unsheathed".
[6] To this end,
it became British policy to recruit only from those tribes whom they classified as members of the 'martial races', and the practice became an integral part of the recruitment manuals for the Army in the British Raj. According to Jeffrey Greenhut, "The Martial Race theory had an elegant symmetry. Indians who were intelligent and educated were defined as cowards, while those defined as brave were uneducated and backward."[7]
The British regarded the 'martial races' as valiant and strong but also intellectually inferior, lacking the initiative or leadership qualities to command large military formations.[8] They were also regarded as politically subservient or docile to authority.[9] For these reasons, the martial races theory did not lead to officers being recruited from them; recruitment was based on social class and loyalty to the British Raj.[10] One source calls this a "pseudo-
ethnological" construction, which was popularized by
Frederick Sleigh Roberts, and created serious deficiencies in troop levels during the
World Wars, compelling them to recruit from 'non-martial races'.
[11] Winston Churchill was reportedly concerned that the theory was abandoned during the war and wrote to the
Commander-in-Chief, India that he must, "rely as much as possible on the martial races".
[12] After
Indian Independence, the
Indian Army abandoned this theory and recruitment took place without discrimination.[
citation needed]
Critics of the theory state that the Indian rebellion of 1857 may have played a role in reinforcing the British belief in it. During this event the troops from the Bengal Native Infantry led by
sepoy Mangal Pandey mutinied against the British. The Bengal troopers were recruits drawn from the martial stock of
Bhumihars and
Rajputs of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. However,
the loyal Pashtuns, Punjabis, Gurkhas, Kumaoni/Kumaunis and Garhwalis did not join the mutiny, and fought on the side of the British Army. From then on, this theory was used to the hilt to accelerate recruitment from among these 'races', whilst discouraging enlistment of 'disloyal' troops and high-caste
Hindus who had sided with the rebel army during the war.
[13]
Some authors, such as Heather Streets, argue that the military authorities puffed up the images of the martial soldiers by writing regimental histories, and by extolling the
kilted Scots,
kukri-wielding Gurkhas and
turbaned Sikhs in numerous paintings.
[14] Richard Schultz, an American author, has claimed the martial race concept as a supposedly clever British effort to
divide and rule the people of India for their own political ends.
[15]"
It is important to note that the Brits simply recruited the most uneducated and destitute from these martial races. These natives were hardly officer material, nor were the British looking for any from these ranks. They were looking for subservient order-bearers, not independent thinkers. Giving command of armies to natives was hardly what the Brits had planned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_race
To wit - this discussion is still OT, and I won't be responding to any more posts, no offense. Let's open separate thread if you want to discuss....
@waz and
@WAJsal bhais can we move the previous few posts between
@DESERT FIGHTER and myself to a new thread please? Many Thanks.
