Armies of the Raj: From the Great Indian Mutiny to Independence, 1858-1947

by Byron Farwell

"The stories are glorious and told with zest and verve."― Washington Times

Genres: History, India, Nonfiction, Military History, Military Fiction

399 pages, Paperback

Published October 17, 1991

About the author

Farwell graduated from Ohio State University and the University of Chicago (M.A., 1968). He served in World War II as a captain of engineers attached to the Mediterranean Allied Air Force in the British Eighth Army area and later also saw combat in the Korean War. He separated from the military after seven years of active duty.

As a civilian, he became director of public relations and director of administration for Chrysler International from 1959 to 1971. He also served three terms as mayor of Hillsboro, Virginia (1977-81).

He published articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, American Heritage, Harper's, Horizon, Smithsonian Magazine as well as serving as a contributing editor to Military History, World War II, and Collier's Encyclopedia. Farwell also published biographies of Stonewall Jackson, Henry M. Stanley, and Sir Richard Francis Burton.

He was a fellow of the MacDowell Colony and a member of both the Royal Geographical Society and the Royal Society of Literature.

Farwell gave his papers to the University of Iowa.

Reviews

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found that Armies of the Raj: From the Great Indian Mutiny to Independence, 1858-1947 was not what I expected. I had hoped for accounts of the many battles, small wars and big fights. This had very limited battle accounts. This book was more general in nature, covering a wide variety of topics, from the introduction of the “memsahibs” from the UK to sports, sex (nothing racy here), ventures into Afghanistan, where the native soldiers were recruited, etc. A lot of words on the clashes between various military and civilian leaders on how the Raj should be governed. Farwell dwelt a long time on several episodes: A British defeat at Maiwand in Afghanistan; a mutiny in Singapore; a lengthy account of the clash between Kitchener and Curzon; an extensive discussion of the British Army at Kut, Iraq in WWI that hardly mentioned anything of note involving the Indian forces; a long discussion of the massacre at Amritsar (he seemed almost to justify the actions of Dyer but he did give a wider perspective on what was going on that may have led to the killing). I’m giving it a 3 Star rating.

Some excerpts:
Not everyone appreciated the excellence of the British Cavalry officer: Others arms and services did not universally admire the cavalry. A fusilier subaltern named his tom cat ”Indian Cavalry” because, he said, the cat spent his life eating, sleeping, playing games, and fornicating.

How do the Pathans of yesteryear compare to today?
A report on the Pathans made in 1855 by the secretary to the Chief Commissioner of the Punjab deserves to be quoted at some length:

Now these tribes are savages-noble savages, perhaps-and not without some tincture of virtue and generosity, but still absolute barbarians nevertheless . . . They have nominally a re1igion . . . [but] in their eyes the one great commandment is blood for blood, and fire and sword for all infidels. They are superstitious and priest-ridden. But the priests (mullahs) are as ignorant as they are bigoted, and use their influence simply for preaching crusades against unbelievers, and inculcate the doctrine of rapine and bloodshed against the defenceless people of the plain….They are avaricious….They are thievish and predatory to the last degree. The Pathan mother often prays that her son will be a successful robber. They are utterly faithless….Every tribe and section of a tribe has its internecine wars, every family its hereditary blood-feuds….Every person counts up his murders. . . . Reckless of the lives of others, they are not sparing of their own. . . . They possess gallantry and courage themselves and admire such qualities in others. . .. They are too fickle and excitable to be industrious in agriculture or anything else. . . . They will take military service and, though impatient of discipline, will prove faithful, unless excited by fanaticism. Such briefly is their character.

Such being their Character, what has been their conduct towards us? They have kept up old quarrels, or picked new ones with our subjects in the plains and valleys near the frontier . . . they have plundered and burned our villages and slain our subjects; they have committed minor robberies and isolated murders without number; they have often levied blackmail from our villages. . . . When inclined for cruel sport, they sally forth to rob and murder, and occasionally take prisoners into captivity for ransom. They have fired upon our own troops and even killed our officers in our own territories. They have given an asylum to every malcontent or proclaimed criminal who can escape from British justice. They traverse at will our territories, enter our villages, trade in our markets; but few British subjects, and no servant of the British Government, would dare to enter their country on any account whatever.

Such was the attitude toward the Pathan at the beginning of the rule of the Crown in India. It did not change markedly in the next ninety years, and neither did the character of the Pathan.

The British vainly studied in detail Pathan habits, customs, language, government, religion, family relationships and genealogies (see Chart 2). Over the years they developed a kind of love-hate relationship.

The arrival of the officer’s wives from the UK put a lid on the freedoms of the adventurous soldier:
…they brought with them British attitudes, British fashions, and British morality; they were soon imposing their ideas, standards, and customs upon their new environment.

Early seventeenth-century pictures depict Englishmen in India dressed in Indian clothing, lolling comfortably on cushions and smoking hookahs. Among the outbuildings behind their houses were frequently found the bibi khannas, where the mistresses, widely regarded as the best of language teachers, lived. With the arrival of the memsahibs the sahibs exchanged their comfortable Indian dress for European clothes and smoked their tobacco European style; their mistresses and bibi khannas were swept away and the English Club and English marmalade appeared. Soon their households were deftly arranged as far as possible in the English style.

The only detailed account of fighting in WWI:
While obsolete weapons, when used by gallant and disciplined men, served well enough for the campaigns in Burma and on the North-West Frontier, they could not suffice to meet the superbly armed, highly disciplined and equally courageous Germans. Nevertheless, the Indian troops were at once thrown into the hard-pressed lines at Messines and into the frozen trenches south of Ypres. There they performed heroically, but the Germans decimated them with massed artillery, hand grenades and trench mortars. On 31 October 1914 the 57th Wilde’s Rifles, in trenches near Messines, was attacked by nine German battalions. In one part of the line a platoon of Dogras was enfiladed and died fighting to a man. Rather than be taken, the last man left alive, Jemadar Kapur Singh, shot himself with his last cartridge. In another trench, Havildar Ganga suffered six wounds while killing five Germans, using first a bayonet and, when that bent, a sword he snatched up. He lived to receive the Indian Order of Merit and the Russian Order of St. George, 4th Class.

[Dan Nuxoll · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is in the fullest sense an imperial history. It is discussing an imperial institution, and it has an imperial perspective. The perspective is clearest in the later chapters which discuss Indian independence as a disaster because the partition into India and Pakistan resulted in communal violence (which is described in detail). These chapters also repeatedly describe Gandhi as an irresponsible trouble-maker; I almost expected to these chapters cite Churchill's description of Gandhi as a seditious half-naked fakir.

In the first paragraph of the forward, the author clearly states that he is focusing on people and events that, in his view, show the nature of the Indian army between 1858 (the period when the Indian government took over from the East Indian Company) and 1947 (Indian independence). This approach results in a focus on colorful characters and episodes and very few probing questions. This is a book of description, not explanation. Some chapters discuss aspects of the Army, while others are more historical. For example, a chapter on the armies of the princely states (parts of India not directly ruled by Britain) is followed by chapters on the Singapore Mutiny and World War I.

Does the book succeed in its task? I suppose so. Is that task worth doing? Maybe. As far as I am concerned, the book raises more questions than it answers. Among the central questions is the relationship between Indians and British. Even the existence of Indian Army after the Mutiny is a bit of a puzzle because the Mutiny involved Indian soldiers rising against the British. I don't think the author adequately addresses this question. Later, the book states that British officers were expected to know their men well, but a few pages later, it discusses the rigid segregation of the British and Indians. How did officers get to know their men? This issue becomes central to the history of WWI as well as the Indian National Army which fought alongside the Japanese against the British in WWII. The author observes that thousands of Indians volunteered to join the army during WWI, but during WWII, soldiers were not motivated by the sort of patriotism that drove British soldiers. Consequently, soldiers readily deserted and joined the Indian National Army. Something odd is going on here. Descriptions of memorable characters and incidents do not address these kinds of questions.

[Joey · Rating 2 out of 5]

A book of middling scholarship and bland prose. The author displays a strong distaste for the Congress Party and their open resistance to aiding the war effort during ww2, which could have been forgiven, had he not entirely glossed over Bengal famine, dismissing the death of 3 million in a single line ("there was a famine in Bengal").

Narrowly avoided 1 star simply by being, overall, what it earnestly claimed to be: a survey of the army of the Raj.

[Dan McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another solid history by Farwell - I read Queen Victoria's Little Wars a few years ago - with a pretty balanced view of the British forces in India. He does not shy away from the racism that held Indians back in rank and he ruthlessly critiques the Martial Races doctrine.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is another incredibly readable and informative book by Farwell and one that should have been a part of the DYOD reading list. The book does focus on the military, and sometimes does go a bit too much into the minutia of military history. Nonetheless, it reads wonderfully and is a great supplement to James’ Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India.
Spanning the post-Mutiny years from 1857 until the chaotic formation of India in 1947, Farwell presents many fascinating details about army life in India. What becomes apparent is how overall beneficial the British Raj was to India and Pakistan's development and growth. What was a hopeless patchwork of petty princedoms that were further divided by ethnic and religious loyalties was, due to the work of the Raj in the 18th century, able to transform into workable, somewhat, nations. The last part of the book discusses the nightmare of independence. It described how Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, and other Indian/Pakistani nationalists were willing to work with the Axis powers during the Second World War (As an aside, it also shows that Ireland’s de Valera was willing to engage in the same pacts with the Devil.) and after the war, when the date for independence had been declared, were totally uncaring of the amount of trouble they caused as the British tried to disengage from the sub-continent without a religious blood-bath; this sections serves well to balance out the portraits of Gandhi and crew as saints without blood on their hands.
What is also apparent is that despite their arrogance, British officers really made the Indian army work. The Indian army was basically intended for service within the Empire and when employed in conventional warfare outside of India in the First and Second World Wars its performance often varied. The sections of the book about the “martial races” –those of northern India-- was quite interesting and provided insight into peoples such as Rajputs, Pathans and Sikhs who have come again into the worlds attentions due to recent events in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up on a whim, and was very pleasantly surprised. From the title one might think this book has a very narrow focus, but this is not so. Farwell uses the army as an insight into England itself. Cultures come in many parts, but each diffracted part contains the whole, like light through a prism. The author makes a few keen observations on

- Why British colonialism took a different turn after the Suez Canal was built
- Why British colonialism took a different turn after women started to arrive in India
- Why the British, while not brutally oppressive, were bound to fail

So, while this book is military history, it is really cultural history disguised as military history, which I really appreciate.

Toynbee made the point that Victorian era nations really worshipped themselves, and one certainly sees this confirmed by Farwell. One can probably see this more clearly by looking at the British in India. Being away from England, they felt the need to overcompensate and out-English those in England itself. I suppose this 'diaspora' psychology is not common to the English only.

Finally, the book is another confirmation about how nations cannot do things halfway. What I mean is, you cannot bring part of your civilization and hope that the 'natives' will be content. England could claim that they brought more economic opportunity to India, as well as modernization. These are features of western culture. But even if they improved their lives, if they treated India as essentially 2nd class (which they definitely did) a growing disconnect will develop that is bound to rupture. Western society, after all, preaches equality. One sees this same principle at work in the Roman Social War, with the French experience in Algeria, and with Israel and Palestine, among other places.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a child, before the internet, I used books as references for research papers in school. I always wondered what it would be like to read one of those. Now I know.