Twentieth-century military pamphlets claimed that devotion to the British made “the Sikhs as a Britain’s victory would have been impossible without the contributions of soldiers from Punjab, Nepal, and the northwestern borders-including many Sikhs-who joined the British in putting down the rebellion. Its brutal suppression by British and Company forces resulted in the transfer of Indian territories to the British crown in 1858. This rebellion had started as a mutiny in the East India Company’s Bengal Army and broke out into a wide-scale revolt across northern India. Twentieth-century British soldiers and officers had great confidence in Sikh soldiers because they believed that Sikhs had served in the Indian Army consistently and loyally since the days of the 1857 uprising. In many ways, the imperial exaltation of Sikhs was the keystone of conflict in the twentieth-century Indian Army. Sikh soldiers’ experiences of service, meanwhile, suggest that there were several unintended consequences of exalting a single community as inherently martial. Instead, British efforts to define Sikhs as both a religious community and a naturally loyal band of warriors inspired anti-colonial soldiers and civilians to challenge such paternalistic definitions of Sikh identity. Both Sikhs and non-Sikhs struggled to live up to this effusive praise. Creating the image of the loyal Sikh soldier idealized-and set up unrealistic expectations for-all soldiers. Barstow of the 2nd Battalion, 11th Sikh Regiment wrote in the 1920s that each Sikh was inherently “a fighting man” who could be counted as “the bravest and steadiest of soldiers.” They were, in his view, “more faithful, more trustworthy” than other widely recruited communities known to the British as “martial races.” Another British soldier remembered that “the Sikhs were better than the others” because they were “more loyal.” British perceptions of inherent Sikh loyalty and superiority influenced wider debates about recruitment and martial prowess across religious communities in India. The revered one before Osiris.In the early twentieth century many Britons believed that Sikh men were the living embodiment of perfect soldiers. The latter is often expressed in the following way: After a life of official duty and ethical behavior, the blessed deceased were revered by the living (who perpetuate their memory on Earth, particularly through offerings) and honored before the gods (with whom they exist beyond death as transfigured spirits). These epithets are primarily applied to the blessed deceased. Other variants based on the fuller writings such as 'reverence', 'veneration'. Here are a couple of related epithets particularly common on stelae: EpithetsĮgyptian texts abound with epithets of gods, kings and officials. It is not at all uncommon for titles to be written without determinatives. (which means both “mouth” and “word”), it is occasionally written with B44 tongue (the tongue being “the one in the month”): Imy-rprobably means literally “the one in whom is the word” (the one who has the authority to issue orders). Titles of office can be divided into secular and religious titles: a) Secular titlesĪ number of titles are composed with the element imy-r 'overseer': Two of the most common conventional titles are:
Conventional titles of status and authority Titles come in two forms: official or administrative titles, and conventional titles connected with status and authority. Office-holding played a central role in the elite culture of ancient Egypt, locating the individual within society, most notably in relation to the king.
0 kommentar(er)
