Britain recognition for Pakistani Soldiers in WW1/WW2

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My question is how Britishers Identified soldiers as Pakistani. It was British India then and hence soldiers should be referred as British Indians. Does anyone know how they categorized?

British India was a colony of Britain, so if you really wanted to get technical these soldiers were "British".

They are being honored as Pakistanis because they belonged to the lands that became Pakistan, just as those soldiers who hailed from the lands that became India would be honored as "Indians".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok, so what you were before 1947?

Again, technically, British, if citizenship/nationality is determined by the identity of the entity that exercises sovereignty over the territory under discussion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

no, there was no pakistan before 1947. There were sindhis, baluchis and kashmiris agreed but not a single one was pakistani. The soldiers who fought in WW1 and WW2 were british Indians. They were part of british India army.

And by the same token, there was no State called "India" before 1947, or for that matter any State called India before the British colonized the sub-continent. "India" was a region, with various parts of the region ruled by different monarchs and entities.

 

[Fazaian]

A good gesture from the British govt, to recognise Pakistani contribution in both world wars.

Well , while these soldiers were busy with fighting, general public was supporting there enemies i-e Ottoman empire and also there was khilafat movement. So it is a disputed matter, not an honour , fighting for colonial masters can be accepted when u don't get other choices, but after 100 years taking honors for them, well, seems ridiculous.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

from India's side (not sure about other asian / african nations).. as a country, we dont feel any pride that Indians were involved in WW1 or WW2. Although not exactly like Irish, but still nobody takes pride.
The Indian army still maintains the tradition and quite proud of their exploits..

Well , while these soldiers were busy with fighting, general public was supporting there enemies i-e Ottoman empire and also there was khilafat movement. So it is a disputed matter, not an honour , fighting for colonial masters can be accepted when u don't get other choices, but after 100 years taking honors for them, well, seems ridiculous.

The recognition is for the courage displayed by soldiers fighting in service of the sovereign of the time.

Please don't conflate the valor displayed by these men with the policies enacted by the rulers of the time, policies over which the average soldier had no control.

 

[Pak_Sher]

My oldest uncle fought in WWII.

 

[Pak_Sher]

Well , while these soldiers were busy with fighting, general public was supporting there enemies i-e Ottoman empire and also there was khilafat movement. So it is a disputed matter, not an honour , fighting for colonial masters can be accepted when u don't get other choices, but after 100 years taking honors for them, well, seems ridiculous.

The Nazis were also attacking Muslim countries in North Africa and everyone was under the gun.

 

[Pride]

And by the same token, there was no State called "India" before 1947, or for that matter any State called India before the British colonized the sub-continent. "India" was a region, with various parts of the region ruled by different monarchs and entities.

My Brother, You are doing the same mistake which others are doing. I was talking about the same thing, I never mentioned "India" alone but "British Indian" as our grandfathers used to hold "British Indian" Passport. The question is that some war which took place before being "Indian" or "Pakistani", How they are distinguishing Pakistani and Indian soldier? I am not trying to prove here anything but asking some question and other posters are un-necessary trolling. Even Britishers did it and they should be doing it so how they determined the same.

Lets take another example beyond this Indian and Pakistan thing, Say Pakistan want to Honor 1965 War veteran and There are 2 ex Army officers from East Pakistan fought war. Now, One is in current Pakistan and other is in Bangladesh then who will be honored and on what basis and what would be considered nationality.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My Brother, You are doing the same mistake which others are doing. I was talking about the same thing, I never mentioned "India" alone but "British Indian" as our grandfathers used to hold "British Indian" Passport. The question is that some war which took place between being "Indian" or "Pakistani", How they are distinguishing Pakistani and Indian soldier? I am not trying to prove here anything but asking some question and other posters are un-necessary trolling. Even Britishers did it and they should be doing it so how they determined the same.

Lets take another example beyond this Indian and Pakistan thing, Say Pakistan want to Honor 1965 War veteran and There are 2 ex Army officers from East Pakistan fought war. Now, One is in current Pakistan and other is in Bangladesh then who will be honored and on what basis and what would be considered nationality.

IMO the "identity" of soldiers in situations like these should be left to the successor nations. Bangladesh and Pakistan can celebrate the contributions of political figures from what is now Bangladesh as both Pakistani and Bangladeshi. Such figures would technically be "Pakistani", given that they fought for the creation of Pakistan and were initially her citizens, but they would also be Bangladeshi, in that they belonged to the lands that today form Bangladesh. It is a shared history, as is the case with the soldiers being honored here - they are both British and Pakistani.

 

[Pride]

IMO the "identity" of soldiers in situations like these should be left to the successor nations. Bangladesh and Pakistan can celebrate the contributions of political figures from what is now Bangladesh as both Pakistani and Bangladeshi. Such figures would technically be "Pakistani", given that they fought for the creation of Pakistan and were initially her citizens, but they would also be Bangladeshi, in that they belonged to the lands that today form Bangladesh. It is a shared history, as is the case with the soldiers being honored here - they are both British and Pakistani.

So it was recommended by Pakistan or Britishers chose them?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Salute to those who laid down their lives for the Brits....However in the last few decades the greatest contribution by Pakistanis in UK has been 7/7...Three of the 4 bombers were British-born sons of Pakistani immigrants...

If they were British born and raised, then the problem is a British one and has nothing to do with their Pakistani origins.

And who will forget the gang of Child rapists...

Yes, let's focus on one gang of child rapists, while conveniently ignoring the fact that several members of the British government are being alleged to have participated in (or covered up) in a massive child rape ring in the UK.

A ‘big political cover-up’ of 1980s pedophile-ring in U.K. Parliament?

... Most everyone remembers Cyril Smith. The member of Parliament had a personal touch. He sang. He went on pal Jimmy Savile’s BBC show.

He also, according to hundreds of allegations since his 2010 death, was a pedophile of historic proportions.

That fact was one of many in a dossier prepared 30 years ago by a crusading member of Parliament who warned of a powerful pedophile ring of “big, big names.” At the time, the man told his family the allegations were “explosive,” according to the BBC. It would, he told his son, “blow the lid off” of the pedophile ring and perhaps take down powerful, famous sex abusers who had infiltrated the highest reaches of British life.

Despite the purported power of the allegations, they weren’t aggressively pursued and no arrests or prosecutions followed. “My father [Geoffrey Dickens] thought that the dossier at the time was the most powerful thing that had ever been produced, with the names that were involved and the power that they had,” son Barry told the BBC late last week after it emerged that the document has since gone missing. “It just seems so suspicious that something so important could just go missing.”

Over the weekend, as its disappearance ballooned into a national scandal, the Guardian reported it may be worse than that. An additional 114 documents relevant to allegations involving the ring are also missing — a revelation sparking suspicion that Margaret Thatcher’s government orchestrated a cover-up of child abuse by politicians.

Norman Tebbit, a former cabinet minister who served under Thatcher, told the BBC on Sunday the inclination at the time may have been to protect “the system” rather than delving “too far” into the claims. Asked if there had been a “big political cover-up,” Tebbit conceded “there may well have been. But it was almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time. You didn’t talk about those sorts of things. It is not the sort of thing that people did.”

That explanation has often emerged in recent weeks as Britain has lurched from one sex abuse scandal among its elite to another. Last week, disgraced painter and entertainer Rolf Harris was sentenced to six years in prison for the “indecent assault” of four girls, one of whom was seven or eight. As is often the case in allegations of abuse, the publicity spurred additional claims, and BBC broadcaster Vanessa Feltz on Sunday said Harris “sexually assaulted me while I interviewed him on live TV.”

But most discussions of sex abuse and pedophilia in Britain loop back to Jimmy Savile — the BBC star accused of necrophilia and abusing 500 children — and these do as well....
A ‘big political cover-up’ of 1980s pedophile-ring in U.K. Parliament? - The Washington Post

There is a lot more in that piece that you can read by following the link, but you probably get the picture, of how "good, White, Christian British men" engaged in the rape and exploitation of children in numbers render minuscule this one "gang of Pakistani British child rapists" that you cling to in order to justify your xenophobic hatred.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So it was recommended by Pakistan or Britishers chose them?

No idea - does it matter? Their identities can be celebrated, or not, either way.

 

[Pride]

No idea - does it matter? Their identities can be celebrated, or not, either way.

Ok, no issues, Thanks! I also consider that though it was late but at the end good gesture by Britishers.

PS: It was nice talking to you. Again!

 

[Jayanta]

If they were British born and raised, then the problem is a British one and has nothing to do with their Pakistani origins.

Yes, let's focus on one gang of child rapists, while conveniently ignoring the fact that several members of the British government are being alleged to have participated in (or covered up) in a massive child rape ring in the UK.


There is a lot more in that piece that you can read by following the link, but you probably get the picture, of how "good, White, Christian British men" engaged in the rape and exploitation of children in numbers render minuscule this one "gang of Pakistani British child rapists" that you cling to in order to justify your xenophobic hatred.

5-Year-Old British Pakistani is World's Youngest Microsoft Professional
If you take pride in that kid....take responsibility of the bombers and the rapists too...
And yes the cover up was to stop a genocide....if this news would have not been contained the EDF would have eradicated your kids from UK.

 

[Shot-Caller]

They have citizenship now.
"If a man tells you he is not afraid to die he is either lying or he is a Gurkha"

Or taliban. LOL