For King and Another Country: Indian Soldiers on the Western Front 191

[Guest]

I stumbled on this recently published book while looking for something else. It might be of interest. Ordered on kindle but not yet read.

For King and Another Country: Indian Soldiers on the Western Front 1914-18

The blurb uses the now rather hackneyed but seemingly obligatory expression that the subject is 'largely forgotten'. Given there are now at least five books still in print that cover the subject it seems a rather hollow and unnecessary claim. I hope it covers the non-Indian troops in the Indian Army as well. This one appears to have used personal accounts by Indian soldiers, so it might be a revelation. We shall see. Just FYI. MG

[Gareth Davies]

I presume that rether than just "Indian Soldiers" it includes other soldiers of the Indian Army?

[Guest]

I presume that rether than just "Indian Soldiers" it includes other soldiers of the Indian Army?

Indeed. Potentially rather annoying if it excludes the non-Indian troops who formed rather a significant part of the Indian Army. I was editing the OP as you were writing. MG

[David_Underdown]

It is largely concentrating on the Indian experience of the war, Shrabani Basu has just delivered a talk about her book at TNA (I imagine it will end up among the podcasts). On top of the normal British sources (war diaries etc, British India Office material at the BL) she has also undertaken some archival research in India, and oral history work with descendants of those who served.

[Guest]

I am not sure this is a book I would strongly recommend. There are only a small handful of soldiers covered and most are well known VC winners. The parts covering the soldiers reads more like a eulogy. The author claims to know what they were thinking when in the thick of the fight and provides no personal accounts to substantiate these rather romantic versions of events. The bibliography is thin and has large omissions from what might be expected.

A very disappointing book so far. Caveat emptor. MG

[David_Underdown]

She is by her own admission a journalist and writer, rather than a military historian

[David Filsell]

"She is by her own admission a journalist and writer, rather than a military historian"

Really - and that justifies any dodgy book?

[Guest]

I wouldn't call it 'dodgy'; that is too harsh - but it lacks the intellectual rigour that is required in arcane subjects.

In the past 18 months there have been three very detailed books on the Indian Army during the Great War; the author at least had some strong pointers on where the necessary reference material lies.The copious sources listed in the appendices would probably have been a good starting point. This book is not quite in the same league as the others. Given the journalistic style one would be forgiven for wondering which parts are based on original material and which parts are the journalist's imagination.

I am not quite sure why claiming to be a journalist is any defence when writing poorly researched history. I would not recommend this book. MG

[David_Underdown]

It was very noticeable that the audience of yesterday's talk contained a far higher proportion of people of subcontinental descent than is ever usually the case. I'd say it's very much an introductory book, which has its place.

[Steven Broomfield]

So for those who've read Corrigan, Morton-Jack, Omissi, etc, probably not necessary to buy this one?

[Guest]

So for those who've read Corrigan, Morton-Jack, Omissi, etc, probably not necessary to buy this one?

No need.

Morton-jack's book isn't even in the bibliography.

[mandy hall]

I attended the talk yesterday. It wasn't the reason, I went to the NA. I just thought it would make a break from photographing Officer's files. It was an interesting talk, some of it about Brighton not that far from me.

I did wonder though, when someone asked about what sources she had looked at in India and no proper answer was given, even though it was mentioned at the start that she had looked at information in India. I also thought it was a rather slim book for 3 years research. I know quantity does not not always mean quality.

Mandy

[paulgranger]

There is another book, published in September last year. 'India and the First World War: If I die Here, Who Will Remember Me?' by Vedica Kant. I have absolutely no idea if it's good, bad or indifferent, just that's it's been flagged in my Amazon reccomendations.

[Adam Prime]

I started this but not got too far through it.

I dislike how it reads almost like a novel.

As said above it could be a useful introductory book but not of much use for those of us already familiar with the subject.

[MaureenE]

Article "Fighting an alien war" which includes mention of two of of the books above, by Shrabani Basu and Vedica Kant, in addition to other books, including one on WW2

http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/1hYxhotA2cZea7nhqHlFdP/Fighting-an-alien-war.html

Cheers

Maureen

[bushfighter]

What I find disconcerting about many academic approaches to military subjects is the blinkers that are worn in order to focus on a particularly popular social or political aspect.

eg: "Alien War" and "Someone Else's' War", and at a conference in Delhi last year I heard the Indian Foreign Affairs Minister state "a war that had nothing to do with them".

Does any Forum Member honestly believe that if the Central Powers had won the war then they would have left India alone?

Kaiser Bill, with Turkish help, interfered in India and Burma during the war via Afghanistan and Thailand and with support for the Ghadr Movement.

I believe that Indian soldiers in the Great War fought to maintain British hegemony (with the hope of being granted Dominion status afterwards) but their fight also kept them free from German and Turkish rule, which could have been rough and brutal. (Take a glance at German colonial activities in Africa and Turkish attitudes towards their subjects in Mesopotamia.)

Thus there was an indirect aspect to Indian participation in the war that was in the interests of Indians.

After the war we British, in my humble opinion, betrayed India by denying her Dominion status - but that is a separate and later contention outside this thread,

So I reject the descriptions "Alien War" and "Someone Else's' War".

Does any other Forum Member have a point of view on this?

​Harry

[Steven Broomfield]

I've not read either book, but I am aware of the school of thought which they appear to support and project.

I agree with you, Harry: a modern misrepresentation of the facts, and one which, ironically, demeans the men who were true to their salt.

[David Filsell]

There's far too much 'don't go there' on anything to do with former colonies to even consider a response to your comments bushfighter. By no means a criticism; it's just the ordure that gets chucked around al la Rhodes in that other country which is the past to bother getting involved.

[Egg Banjo]

I've not read either book, but I am aware of the school of thought which they appear to support and project.

I agree with you, Harry: a modern misrepresentation of the facts, and one which, ironically, demeans the men who were true to their salt.

Agree wholeheartedly with this, and find it odd that while the Indian and Pakistani communities in the UK rightly celebrate their families' participation those in India seem to take the opposite view.

[seaforth78]

I wonder how much the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in Britain today even realise the how much India gave. I suppose like the Irish born after 1922, the nationalistic version taught in their informative years have become holy writ and thus has clouded out or gave collective amnesia on this part of history. By contrast, I am glad to say that the Sudan Defense Force's contribution in the 2nd War towards the Axis's defeat in North Africa is taught alive and well in Sudanese schools. No whitewashing there in Britain's former possession.