1917: On Sikhs and other Indian Soldiers in the First World War
Thursday, 23 Jan 2020, 06:56
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Jonathan Vernon, Thursday, 23 Jan 2020, 07:00
Though on holiday I find myself stepping back into my role as the Digital Editor for The Western Front Association as I'm kicking around a ski apartment with a stinking cold. This allows me to follow a thread on our @TheWFA Twitter feed discussing the Sam Mendes film 1917 at length in which there has been some discussion on whether or not Sikhs would have been part of the British Army on the Western Front in 1917.
As well as Sikhs, there were Punjabis, Gurkhas and others in combatant and non-combatant roles, as officers and sepoys (privates) from across what was then called India or the Indian Empire and comprise modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as Burma and soldiers from the North West Frontier (Kashmir), Afghanistan and Nepal.
1917: On Sikhs and other Indian Soldiers in the First World War
Though on holiday I find myself stepping back into my role as the Digital Editor for The Western Front Association as I'm kicking around a ski apartment with a stinking cold. This allows me to follow a thread on our @TheWFA Twitter feed discussing the Sam Mendes film 1917 at length in which there has been some discussion on whether or not Sikhs would have been part of the British Army on the Western Front in 1917.
As well as Sikhs, there were Punjabis, Gurkhas and others in combatant and non-combatant roles, as officers and sepoys (privates) from across what was then called India or the Indian Empire and comprise modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as well as Burma and soldiers from the North West Frontier (Kashmir), Afghanistan and Nepal.