Military history is a most challenging
discipline, although at first sight it seems a
Childs play !
As I read this apology of military analysis
published in Journal of Military History of USA
I realized how true the above mentioned
premise was !
Mr Kaushik Roy who I first read in the journal
of military history thinks that he is the
19
19
greatest Bhagwan of Indo Pak military history
but makes shocking factual as well as
analytical mistakes.
As far as I understand he has mastered citing
a flood stream of references which impresses
the naieve Americans and the ultra naieve
characters, all anonymous known as referees
of Journal of Military History of USA !
20
20
What these naieve referees don’t understand
is that Kaushik Roy commits glaring mistakes
which escape the supposed sagacity of these
Super Bhagwan referees also !
Some previous examples of Roys shocking
ignorance and lack of knowledge of military
history which this scribe discovered in the
past are as below:--
21
21
1. In an article in Journal of Military
History of VMI USA which hereafter we
will abbreviate as JMH , Roy fallaciously
and without references claimed that 45 %
of the army in India.
1
2. Claimed in one of his books that
Attock was the most intensely recruited
districts is fallacious as during WW One
whereas this district was 12th in Punjab in
1Page-951- Coercion Through Leniency: British Manipulation of the CourtsMartial System in the Post-Mutiny Indian Army, 1859-1913-The Journal of
Military History Issue Number 65 (October 2001).
22
22
contributing recruits to the British Indian
Army .2
3. In another book Kaushik Roy makes a
highly fallacious and historically totally
2 Page-42-INDIAN ARMY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR- Kaushik Roy-Oxford
University Press.
23
23
inaccurate statement like falsely claiming
that majority of British Indian Army troops
in Iraq were Muslim.3
3 Page-17 –INDIAN ARMY IN TWO WORLD WARS- Edited by Kaushik RoyBrill Books- ISBN: 978-90-04-21145-2
Publication Date: 14 Oct 2011
24
24
4. In another book he fallaciously
claimed that corps commander of
Pakistans 1 Corps in 1971 was Lt Gen
25
25
Tikka Khan , whereas this statement has
absolutely no connection with the truth .4
Roy totally misses the fact that the British
company failed to defeat the Marathas in the
First Anglo Maratha war.It is expected that
articles published in so called prime historical
journals like JMH should at least educate a
reader about basic facts ?
4 Page-108-LIMITED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA FROM DECOLONISATION TO
RECENT TIMES-Kaushik Roy and Scott Gates-Routledge -2017
26
26
A major flaw in this articles treatment of First
Sikh War of the company is that Roy totally
misses the point that Sikh Army was at par
with British East India Companys army but
was defeated simply because both of its
highest military commanders were in secret
league with the company and wanted that
the Sikh Army be destroyed as they feared it
more than the British company.This point
discussed in much detail by various British
27
27
authors including Colonel Malleson is totally
whitewashed by Roy.
ANGLO NEPAL WAR
Roys analysis of Nepal war is also factually
incorrect and a collection of sweaping
judgements which had no connection with
reality.Here Roys analysis contains the
following major analytical flaws:--
28
28
• His claim that “Due to their numerical
and firepower superiority, the British
won.”5
• Facts of Nepal war well documented in
JW Fortescues monumental “History
of British Army” which Kaushik Roy
never bothered to read or cite as well
as various first hand British account
disprove Roys assertions.
5 Page-665- Military Synthesis in South Asia: Armies, Warfare, and Indian
Society, c. 1740–1849 –Kaushik Roy-Issue Number 69 (July 2005): The
Journal of Military History -Pages -651–90.
29
29
• This was beyond the sagacity of so
called brilliant anonymous referees of
Journal of Military History of USA.
• To recap for the reader (a) British
company invaded Nepal with four
forces three of which had British and
Indian units while one had only Indian
units led off course by British officers.
(b) Three forces comprising British and
Indian units were a total failure in
1814-1815 (c) Only the fourth force
30
30
comprising Indian units only under
Major General Ochterlony was a
success (d) The British Company
therefore decided to make Ochterlony
overall commander. (e) Ochterlony
defeated the Nepalis by outflanking
manoeuvres and not by superior
manpower as Roy claims.
• The most important fact of Anglo
Nepal war that an all Indian force
outperformed three forces which
31
31
contained British troops was totally
ignored by Roy or not even known by
him.
ANGLO MYSORE WARS
32
32
The first point of contention about Anglo
Mysore wars in this article is the assertion
below:--
“Besides a transition in the polity and the
force structure, Tipu also initiated a doctrinal
shift. While Haidar Ali ravaged Britishoccupied Karnataka by conducting maneuver
warfare with the aid of his light cavalry
during 1767 and 1768, Tipu reverted to
positional warfare after his father’s death in
1781. This was because the Mysore Army
33
33
under Tipu became less mobile due to the
dominance of the infantry-artillery system.
With the help of French military engineers,
Tipu constructed a fort in his capital at
Seringapatam. The fort had a bastioned
curtain wall and the river Cauvery functioned
as the wet ditch. He adorned this fort with 929
static guns and concentrated 22,000 of his
48,000 infantry within its walls. Seringapatam
became the schwerpunkt of the British military
operation in 1799.6
6 Page-669-Ibid.
34
34
THE ABOVE WHITEWASHED STATEMENT BY
KAUSHIK ROY SUMS UP HIS BROAD
BRUSHES.
Here Kaushik Roy offers no analysis why
Tipu Sultan failed and only uses a vague
German term “Schwerpunkt”, without
actually analysing what happened.
Here there are the following flaws with
Kaushik Roys analysis which should not have
35
35
escaped the sagacity (if they had any) of the
so called referees of JMH :--
• Hyder Ali , father of Tipu Sultan followed a
superior strategy of denying logistics to
the British company which enabled him to
win First Anglo Mysore War against the
British company and draw Second Anglo
Mysore War, although Hyder died in the
middle of this war.
36
36
• Tipu abandoned his fathers superior
strategy of logistics denial which Kaushik
Roy fails to clearly bring out.
• Another most serious flaw of Roys
analysis is that the British company had
no cavalry till Second Mysore war and this
enabled Mysore to defeat the company by
denying them logistics as well as
information.By end of Second Mysore
War British company decided to raise
cavalry regiments , the most crucial
37
37
decision in the military history of British
East India Company but Kaushik Roy
totally misses this point.
• The most decisive blow on Mysore was
inflicted by the Companys Lord Cornwallis
in Third Anglo Mysore War of 1790-92
but our so called brilliant Kaushik Roy
totally fails to bring out this point in his so
called analysis !
• Kaushiks emphasis on artillery is also
superficial.Lord Cornwallis in Third Anglo
38
38
Mysore war launched an assault on Tipus
capital Seringapattam without any
artillery and actually forced Tipu to
capitulate.
• Kaushik fails to bring out that Mysore was
decisively defeated in 1792 while the
1799 war with Mysore was actually a
much trumpeted show signifying defeat of
a state which had already been eliminated
as a serious player seven years earlier in
1792.
39
39
• Kaushiks verbosity and emphasis on
artillery is totally fallacious and flawed like
when he states as below :--“ In response,
the EIC’s force became firepower heavy.
The Company’s Army deployed forty 18-
pounders for breaching the walls of
Seringapatam and seven 8- and 5.5-inch
howitzers for plunging fire inside the fort’s
walls. In addition there were fifty-seven 6-
pounders for fire support 62 for the
besieging army against Tipu’s infantry.
40
40
After Tipu’s defeat, the Marathas
challenged British power in Deccan.”7
• As earlier stated Roy totally misses the
decisive innovation by the British
company that destroys Mysorean strategy
of denying logistics to the company even
followed by Tipu, i.e introduction of
cavalry.Further Lord Cornwallis multiplied
the companys cavalry by incorporating
Hyderabad and Maratha cavalry which
7 Page-669-Ibid
41
41
increased the cavalry strength against
Mysore to over 75,000 cavalry.
• Roys claims regarding role of artillery are
totally flawed as Lord Cornwallis never
used artillery in the assault on
Seringapattam in 1792 and Tipu
surrendered without artillery breaching
his citadel seringapattams walls.
• In 1799 General Harris used artillery
purely as a matter of obstinacy and over
insurance whereas Tipu Sultan wanted to
42
42
make terms with the company. Instead
Harris on orders of Wellesley presented
such unduly humiliating terms to Tipu that
Tipu was left with no choice but to
fight.So Kaushiks trumpeting about
artillery is pure nonsense.
All we get from Kaushik Roy are massive
endnotes designed to impress the naieve
Americans of JMH but no substantial analysis
!
43
43
BATTLE OF ASSAYE
Kaushik Roys analysis of battle of Assaye is
totally superficial and shallow.
He beats about the bush discussing irrelevant
matters but totally fails to note that the
Marathas were defeated as General
Wellesley disrupted their initially brilliant war
plan by forcing them to change front.
44
44
This most famous and well known manoeuvre
totally escapes the jaundiced and faulty
perception of Kaushik Roy, which is really a
mystery ?
45
45
46
46
Kaushik Roy fails to note that the essential
reason of Maratha defeat at Assaye was
failure to modify initial war plans under the
pressure of actual circumstances of war
.Something which Germans called
“OPERATIV” and later day staff colleges and
war colleges called “OPERATIONAL
STRATEGY”.
This was totally beyond Kaushik Roys
perception !
47
47
Kaushik Roys analysis of details of battle of
Assaye is also highly fallacious.
He fails to note that HM 74th Foot suffered
excessive losses as it was launched into a
village and was fighting in built up area.
On the other hand the second British unit
suffered less losses than the Madras infantry
units.8
8 Wellesley defeated the Marathas with a Native-British army of
approximately 6000 troops out of which I ,500 were of dubious
value/reliability being Mysoreans/Marathas,while the 4,500 consisting
of British and Native troops did bulk of the fighting. The infantly
consisted of two Royal British Army regiments and five native
regiments ofthe Madras Anny,while the cavalry consisted of one Royal
48
48
British Army cavalry regiment and three Native cavalry regiments from
the Madras Army. The Maratha Army opposing Wellesley consisted of
10,500 Maratha infantry organised and disciplined on European lines
by French officers and around 40,000 irregular horse. The major
reason why the British won the victory was the future victor of
Waterloo's brilliant flank march,executed before the battle.Wellesley
was initially advancing straight towards the Marathas.A battle fought
would have enabled the Marathas to effectively utilise their numerical
superiority against the British. Wellesley exhibited tremendous coup d
oeil and decided not to attack frontally.Earlier he had been assured by
local guides that there was no ford across which Wellesley could take
his army to outflank the Marathas. He noticed two villages opposite
each other on the north and south banks of river Kaitna and assessed
that ,there must be a ford connecting the two villages. A ford was
discovered and Wellesley turned the Maratha front ,forcing them to
change their entire front and to face the British in an area in which
their numerical superiority was nullified,by virtue of frontage restricted
by two rivers flowing on each flank.British writers generally claim,that
most of the fighting was done by the European troops in this
battle.This statement is totally incorrect. It is necessary to discuss this
battle in some detail,since many myths about European troops
invincibility date originate from this battle as far as British military
historians are concerned. (One British historian Sir Arthur Bryant is
pleased to show only the British regiments on the battle map of
Assaye in his book,while omitting the native regiments!) On face value
it appears that the Europeans did all the fighting since the total
casualties suffered stand out at 644 European and 940 Natives Closer
examination of the casualties reveal that only H.M 74'h Foot suffered
exceptionally heavy casualties i.e. 401 and this happened because
this regiment attacked built up area ,which was difficult to clear. On
the other hand the other British infantry regiment H.M 78'" Foot
suffered only 105 casualties,high casualties but less than four Madras
native infantry battalions which fought the same battle i.e. 14 Madras
Native Infantry which suffered 116 casualties, l/8 Madras Native
Infantry which suffered 170 casualties, l/10 Madras Native Infantry
which suffered 139 casualties and above all 2/12 Madras Native
49
49
Infantry which suffered 222 casualties. Assaye was one of the most
decisive battles of India which destroyed the Maratha confederacy
forces of Sindhia and Bhonsla,and as we can see from the
casualties,the native troops played a very important part in the battle.It
is fair to state that without the natives,the British could not have been
won this battle,on the other hand the battle proved that British
leadership organisation and tactics were the greatest force multipliers.
No other Indian Army of similar size as small as the British Indian
Army at Assaye could have defeated the Marathas at Assaye! It was
the triumph of the European way of warfare using a European led ,and
with a European nucleus,but an essentially predominantly Indian force
to defeat another Indian force which had adopted the European way of
war but was still organisationally and operationally far behind the
superior British Company.
50
50
51
51
What we get from Roy is a much propagated
British version that Assaye was all about a
British regiment HM 74TH Foot .
So with all his flashy endnotes and irrelevant
references all that Kaushik Roy reproduces in
this so called analytical article is Sir Arthur
Bryrant parroted.
Roys analysis is so myopic that he totally
omits the crucial role of Indian Madras
Cavalry in Assaye and while he mentions HM
52
52
19th Light Dragoons parroting British sources
he has nothing to say about 4
th Madras
Cavalry which suffered almost as many
casualties as HM 19th Light Dragoons and two
other Madras cavalry regiments which also
played major role in the battle.
What sort of analysis is Kaushik Roy doing is a
mystery, other than displaying voluminous
endnotes which have nothing to do with
53
53
actual essence of the battles that he white
washes and broad brushes ?
The most shocking failure of Roys analysis in
second anglo Maratha war is his total
elimination of war in the north where Lord
Lake fought the most decisive battles of Delhi
and laswari capturing Delhi and crushing
Maratha power in the north ?
Third Maratha War
54
54
Kaushik Roys claims about forts like as below
are also highly questionable:--
“How can one explain the lightning victories
of the EIC against the Maratha forts between
1818 and 1819? The Marathas neglected to
incor- porate the latest European techniques
regarding fortifications. The forts were
defended by a round stone wall. Neither the
trace italienne configuration nor Vauban’s
star-shaped fortifications for providing
55
55
flanking fire were present. Worse, towards the
end of the eighteenth century the posts”.9
Forts thanks to advances in artillery had
already become obsolete and this fact was
well confirmed in all mysore wars.
Roy fails to note that the Marathas had been
decisively crushed in Second Anglo Maratha
war of the company and the Third Anglo
Maratha was basically a rounding up of
Marathas who were already a defeated entity.
9 Page-675-Ibid
56
56
FIRST SIKH WAR
Roy makes fallacious assertions about Sikhs
and places them as below the Marathas vis a
vis British Companys forces whereas the
Sikhs inflicted highest casualties on the
British company and brought them closest to
defeat as compared to any opponent in India.
This is the most serious failing of Kaushik
Roys analysis.
Kaushik Roy fails to note that in battles like
Moodke the British leadership and tactics
57
57
were so flawed that most of British casualties
occurred because of what we call friendly fire.
The use of horse artillery that Kaushik Roy
worked only at Battle of Moodke as Sikhs had
open flanks and not in any other battle as
Sikhs were very careful about their
flanks.This point our brilliant analyst totally
misses.
The most important point that Kaushik
Roy misses in Sikh warfare is that Sikh
Army was doomed to fail as Sikh chief
58
58
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh never trusted the
Sikhs and instead imported non Sikh
Hindustani Hindus etc as well as non Sikh
Punjabi Hindus who were potential traitors
and totally betrayed the Sikh Army in First
Anglo Sikh War.
Many of Kaushik Roys comparisons are
totally utopian like he compares India with
Russia which was by and large an ethnically
homogenuous state while India was a multi
59
59
multi ethnic religious fragmentation of states
at war with each other.10
SHOCKING TOTALLY AVOIDABLE SIMPLE
FACTUAL MISTAKES WHICH WERE NOT EVEN
NOTED BY THE SUPER BRILLIANT THREE
SOLOMON (ANONYMOUS) REFEREES OF
JMH
10 Page-682-Ibid-Kaushik Roys argument below is totally utopian and
synthetic “Modern military forces require a modern state. Unlike the seventeenth-century Russian kingdom, the Indian powers were not able to
construct a modern bureaucratic state administered by a literate bureaucracy. The British imported elements of Western models of state struc- ture.
This enabled them to construct bureaucratic, revenue-extracting government
machinery, and thus, to maintain a big army permanently. On the other
hand, the Maratha and Sikh jagirdari system of extracting”.
60
60
Roy makes simple mistakes which is
shocking!
Like he gives a new name as well as date of
conquest to eminent British East India
Company General Sir Charles James Napier on
page-683 and calls him :--- William Napier.
11
Kaushik Roy thus writes this as below:--
“On 10 September 1847, Napier’s 9-pounders
opened up and blasted the Beluchi field
fortifications. Under cover of artillery fire, His
11 Page-683-Ibid –Roy changes Sir Charles Napiers name to William Napier and changes year of his operations in
Sindh from 1847 to 1843.
61
61
Majesty’s 17th Regiment followed by the 1st
Sepoy Regiment advanced towards the
Beluchis.
My simple question to Society of Military
History of USA remains as to what are your
referees doing , when they cannot check such
simple mistakes ?
Now this is not just gross lethargy and
criminal intellectual incompetence on part of
62
62
Kaushik Roy and the three Solomon referees
of JMH but more than that :--
• If year was printed 1847 instead of 1843
by typing error how is it that actual date
of battle of Miani here referred to was
changed from 17 February to 10
September ?
• The second shocking part of Kaushik Roys
intellectual rape of history is that he
invents a new unit of Indians fighting at
63
63
Meanee which he calls First Regiment !
What he calls First Regiment was actually
1
st Bombay Grenadiers and not 1st
Regiment.
• But more seriously this regiment
PERFORMED PHENOMENALLY BADLY.Its
commanding officer DISOBEYED Napiers
orders to attack KOTRI and sat doing
nothing suffering only 1 fatal casualty
while two Indian infantry regiments which
ROY TOTALLY OMITS DID ALL THE
64
64
FIGHTING AND SUFFERED HEAVY
CASUALTIES.
• FURTHER AS PUNISHMENT FOR BAD
CONDUCT AND NOT TAKING PART IN THE
BATTLE 1st Bombay Grenadiers was NOT
GRANTED THE BATTLE HONOUR CALLED
MIANI 1843.But Kaushik Roy has nothing
to say about this.MOST THIRD RATE
SYNTHESIS OF BRITISH INDIAN MILITARY
HISTORY.
65
65
• Whereas in reality there was only 12th
Regiment of Bombay Infantry at Meanee
as CLEALY AND SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN
British East India Companys records freely
available in all public libraries in India
Pakistan and worldwide.
• How such simple facts can escape
referees of Society of Military History is
shocking.
66
66
67
67
How Kaushik Roy could be so disastorous
with his facts and how the know all
anonymous Solomon referees of JMH could
be so incompetent is mind boggling !
