The Forgotten Debate, 1817–1917 -Chandar S. Sundaram

1. The Forgotten Debate, 1817–1917 -Chandar S.
Sundaram-Short Review
Major A.H Amin (Retired )

2. Canadian Indian professor makes the ludicrous
claim that Indian troops fought Crimean War and
Newzealand Wars -Indianization, the Officer Corps,
and the Indian Army -
Canadian Indian professor makes the ludicrous claim that Indian troops fought Crimean
War and Newzealand Wars -Indianization, the Officer Corps, and the Indian Army -The
Forgotten Debate, 1817–1917 -Chandar S. Sundaram-Short Review
• August 2022
• DOI:
• 10.13140/RG.2.2.18340.76160
• Project:
• MILITARY HISTORY
• Agha H Amin
The basic flaw with this book is that the author
totally ignores the fact that British fear of having
Indians in officer rank was a pre 1857 fear dating
from rebellion of Yusuf Khan in Madras in 1750s.

3. He gives the British no credit for largeheartedly
allowing Indians in the strategic artillery arm ,
including horse artillery , and trusting Indian Army
with the most lethal and best rifle of that time the
Enfield Rifle !
All that Sundaram harps upon is British biases !
The million dollar question which Sundaram makes
no attempt to answer is as to why should the British
have allowed Indians in officer ranks , with so much
notorious history of Indian units rebelling and
mutinying right from the time Indian units were
created !
How could mercenaries be trusted.
On page-258 Sundaram invents a new rank hitherto
unknown in British Indian military history:---

4. Risaldar Major is corrupted to Resaidar Major which
is not expected from a Mc Gill university Canadian
Indian professor !
Sundaram makes false claims about Indian troops
being employed in Crimean war and in Newzealand
wars which is shocking:--
Sundaram on page -54 fallaciously claims that
Roberts was commissioned in Bengal Artillery in
1852 , whereas Roberts was commissioned on 12th
December 1851 as a second Lieutenant in the
Bengal Artillery.1
1 Page-13-MAJOR-GENERAL SIR FREDERICK S.
ROBERTS,BART., V.C., G.C.B., C.I.E., R.A. A
MEMOIR- CHARLES RATHBONE LOW-W.H Allen and
Company-London-1883.

5. Sundaram’s knowledge of basic organisation is
severely defective and faulty and he makes false
and misleading statements like as below (page-60):-
--
The above is an absolute nonsense statement and if
Sundaram had simply studied Cardews books or
that of Heathcote , this false statement was entirely
avoidable ! Having studied in a Canadian university
may not make a man a KNOW ALL !
The pre rebellion cavalry regiment of Indian cavalry
had three squadrons with two troops each. Total six
troops.Each troop had a European captain as a
troop leader assisted by a lieutenant . 2 There was
no question that a Risaldar could command a
squadron with four officers present.
Sundaram has confused the three officers with the
pre 1857 irregular cavalry unit which had total three
2
Page-38 - THE INDIAN ARMY- T.A Heathcote-David and Charles -London-1974.

6. officers and a surgeon .It was in these regiments
that Risaldars could sometimes command
squadrons.
Sundaram is biased towards Lord Clive who laid the
strategic foundation of British rule by conquering
Bengal which included Bihar and parts of UP at that
time . Thus Sundaram makes the below statement
which makes little sense:--
Sundaram is ignorant of the fact that Madras and
Bombay Armies were failures against Mysore in
Second and Third Mysore war and only succeded
when massively reinforced by troops from Bengal
Army and large number of European battalions.
The point to be noted is that proportionately larger
percentages of casualties were incurred by
European battalions in all four mysore wars.

7. Madras and Bombay Armies were always smaller
armies and Bengal Army was much larger and did
most of the fighting.
Lastly coming down to what this scribe saw as an
officer of Pakistan Army and what he learnt from
Indo Pak military history:---
• Both Indian and Pakistan Armies were pathetic
and total leadership failures in 1965 war and
failed to achieve a breakthrough at Chawinda
(Indian Army) despite a 5 to 1 superiority in
tanks on 8th September 1965 --- and at Khem
Karan (Pakistan Army) despite a 7 to 1
superiority in tanks on 6th-8th September 1965.
• Both armies were again total leadership failures
in 1971 war in Shakargarh salient.
• Here both Indian and Pakistani corps
commanders were total failures and 8 brigade
commander and CO 13 Lancers were total
failures.
• In Chhamb a tank regiment could not navigate 6
kilometres stretch over an area, and one and

8. half squadron got lost and the attack was
disastorously delivered with two tank troops .
In retrospect I would salute British caution for not
allowing Indians in officer ranks , except in a
minority and in junior positions.
Mercenaries can never be trusted and should not
be trusted.
Subdaram’s book is about non issues and should
only be read in the bathroom by retired people fed
up with their wives.