1,326
edits
robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.
->Neils51 m (replaced: posession → possession) |
(robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Mutiny}} | {{Short description|Mutiny}} | ||
{{EngvarB|date=July | {{EngvarB|date=July 2022}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=July | {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2022}} | ||
{{Good article}} | {{Good article}} | ||
{{History of Singapore}} | {{History of Singapore}} | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
===[[5th Light Infantry]]=== | ===[[5th Light Infantry]]=== | ||
The 5th Light Infantry was a long established regiment in the Indian Army, dating from 1803.<ref name=SingaporeMutiny>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|date=1984|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> and had a good military record. It was initially known as the 2nd Battalion, 21st Bengal Native Infantry and was re-designated as the 42nd Bengal Native (Light) Infantry in 1843. After the Indian Mutiny, also known as the [[Indian Rebellion of 1857]], the surviving Bengal regiments were renumbered in 1861 and consequently the 42nd became the 5th Bengal Native (Light) Infantry. Following army reforms, the word ‘’Native’’ was dropped the regiment simply became known as the 5th Light Infantry.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyunits/indianinfantry/5thltinf.htm|title=Armed Forces: Units: Indian Infantry: 5th Light Infantry|publisher=British Empire|access-date=13 February | The 5th Light Infantry was a long established regiment in the Indian Army, dating from 1803.<ref name=SingaporeMutiny>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|date=1984|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> and had a good military record. It was initially known as the 2nd Battalion, 21st Bengal Native Infantry and was re-designated as the 42nd Bengal Native (Light) Infantry in 1843. After the Indian Mutiny, also known as the [[Indian Rebellion of 1857]], the surviving Bengal regiments were renumbered in 1861 and consequently the 42nd became the 5th Bengal Native (Light) Infantry. Following army reforms, the word ‘’Native’’ was dropped the regiment simply became known as the 5th Light Infantry.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyunits/indianinfantry/5thltinf.htm|title=Armed Forces: Units: Indian Infantry: 5th Light Infantry|publisher=British Empire|access-date=13 February 2022}}</ref><ref name=SingaporeMutiny/> The regiment was well known for several battle honours, which included the Arakan, Afghanistan and Kandahar 1842, Ghunze 1842, Kabul and Moodkee, Ferozeshah and Sobroan 1857.<ref name=SingaporeMutiny/> It also fought in the [[Second Anglo-Afghan War|Second Afghan War]] of 1879–80 and the [[Third Anglo-Burmese War|Third Burmese War]] of 1885–87, which led to the British annexation of Burma and its tributary Shan states.<ref name=SingaporeMutiny/> | ||
Immediately prior to World War One, the regiment was employed in garrison duties in India. On 10 October 1914, the 5th Light Infantry was stationed in [[Nowgong, Chhatarpur|Nowgong]] when it was posted to Singapore to replace the [[King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry]], which had been ordered to France.<ref>{{cite news|title =Vivid Story of Singapore Mutiny|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1915/05/02/archives/vivid-story-of-singapore-mutiny-little-has-leaked-out-about-the.html|page=7|date=2 May 1915|work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Unusually for 1914–15 the 5th Light Infantry was an entirely Muslim unit, mainly comprising [[Ranghar]]s (Muslims of [[Rajput]] origin) and [[Pathans]], commanded by British and Indian officers. Upon arrival in Singapore, the 5th Light Infantry was based in Alexandra Barracks.<ref name=SingaporeMutiny/> | Immediately prior to World War One, the regiment was employed in garrison duties in India. On 10 October 1914, the 5th Light Infantry was stationed in [[Nowgong, Chhatarpur|Nowgong]] when it was posted to Singapore to replace the [[King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry]], which had been ordered to France.<ref>{{cite news|title =Vivid Story of Singapore Mutiny|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1915/05/02/archives/vivid-story-of-singapore-mutiny-little-has-leaked-out-about-the.html|page=7|date=2 May 1915|work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Unusually for 1914–15 the 5th Light Infantry was an entirely Muslim unit, mainly comprising [[Ranghar]]s (Muslims of [[Rajput]] origin) and [[Pathans]], commanded by British and Indian officers. Upon arrival in Singapore, the 5th Light Infantry was based in Alexandra Barracks.<ref name=SingaporeMutiny/> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Mutiny== | ==Mutiny== | ||
On 27 January 1915, Colonel Martin announced that the 5th Light Infantry was to be transferred to Hong Kong for further garrison duties, replacing another Indian regiment. However, rumours were circulated among the sepoys that they might instead be sent to Europe or to | On 27 January 1915, Colonel Martin announced that the 5th Light Infantry was to be transferred to Hong Kong for further garrison duties, replacing another Indian regiment. However, rumours were circulated among the sepoys that they might instead be sent to Europe or to the Ottoman Empire to fight against their Muslim co-religionists.<ref name=Sareen>{{cite book|title=Secret Documents on Singapore Mutiny 1915|last=Sareen|first=T.R.|date=1995|pages=11–14|publisher=Mounto Publishing House|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-81-7451-009-9}}</ref> Three Indian officers, Subedar Dunde Khan, Jemedar Christi Khan, and Jemedar Ali Khan, were later to be identified by a court of enquiry as key conspirators in the matter.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|publisher= Oxford University Press|year=1984|page=22|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> When the final order to sail to Hong Kong aboard the ''Nile'' arrived in February 1915, they and other ringleaders among the sepoys decided that it was time to rebel. On the morning of 15 February, the [[General Officer Commanding]] Singapore addressed a farewell parade of the regiment, complimenting the sepoys on their excellent turnout and referring to their departure the next day, without mentioning Hong Kong as the destination. At 3:30 pm on the afternoon of the same day, four Rajput companies of the eight companies making up the 5th Light Infantry<ref>Philip Mason, pages 426–427 "A Matter of Honour", {{ISBN|0-333-41837-9}}</ref> mutinied. The mostly Pathan sepoys of the remaining four companies did not join the mutiny but scattered in confusion. Two British officers of the regiment were killed as they attempted to restore order. | ||
The mutineers divided themselves into three groups. A party of 100 went to obtain ammunition from Tanglin Barracks, where 309 Germans, including crew members from the German light cruiser [[SMS Emden (1906)|SMS ''Emden'']], had been interned by the British. The mutineers fired on the camp guards and officers without warning, killing ten British guards, three [[Royal Johor Military Force|Johore troops]] present in the camp and one German internee. Amongst the dead were Second Lieutenant John Love Montgomerie,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of John Love Montgomerie from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672245}}</ref> Rifles; Sergeant G. Wald,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of George Wald from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672272}}</ref> (Reserve) Engineers; Corporal D. McGilvray,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Donald McGilvray from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672256}}</ref> Rifles; Corporal G.O. Lawson,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Gordon Onslow Lawson from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672258}}</ref> Cyclist Scouts; Lance Corporal J.G.E. Harper,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of J G E Harper from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672252}}</ref> Rifles; Private B.C. Cameron,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Bernard Cuthbert Cameron from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672255}}</ref> Rifles; Private F.S. Drysdale,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Frank Stuart Drysdale from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672284}}</ref> Rifles; Private A.J.G. Holt,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Alec John Grice Holt from Old Bancroftians Website|url=http://www.bancroftians.net/cgi-bin/bancms3.pl?dn=centholtajg}}</ref> Rifles and Stoker 1st Class C. F. Anscombe,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Charles Frederick Anscombe from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/6387895}}</ref> HMS Cadmus.<ref>{{cite web|title=Roll of Honour|url=http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Overseas/SingaporeMutiny.html|website=roll-of-honour.com}}</ref> Three Britons and one German were wounded but survived the attack, as did eight [[Royal Army Medical Corps]] personnel in the camp hospital, including one who managed to escape under heavy fire to raise the alarm. The mutineers tried to persuade the Germans to join them, but many of the latter were shaken by the sudden violence and reluctant to do so. Some German sailors and reservists wanted to join with the mutineers, but the majority adopted a neutral stance, refusing to accept rifles from the Indians.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|pages=62–71|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Herbert|first=Edwin|title=Small Wars and Skirmishes: 1902–1918 – Early Twentieth-century Colonial Campaigns in Africa, Asia and the Americas|publisher=Foundry books|year=2003|page=223|isbn=978-1-901543-05-6}}</ref> Thirty-five Germans escaped but the rest remained in the barracks.<ref name=Sareen/> | The mutineers divided themselves into three groups. A party of 100 went to obtain ammunition from Tanglin Barracks, where 309 Germans, including crew members from the German light cruiser [[SMS Emden (1906)|SMS ''Emden'']], had been interned by the British. The mutineers fired on the camp guards and officers without warning, killing ten British guards, three [[Royal Johor Military Force|Johore troops]] present in the camp and one German internee. Amongst the dead were Second Lieutenant John Love Montgomerie,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of John Love Montgomerie from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672245}}</ref> Rifles; Sergeant G. Wald,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of George Wald from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672272}}</ref> (Reserve) Engineers; Corporal D. McGilvray,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Donald McGilvray from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672256}}</ref> Rifles; Corporal G.O. Lawson,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Gordon Onslow Lawson from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672258}}</ref> Cyclist Scouts; Lance Corporal J.G.E. Harper,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of J G E Harper from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672252}}</ref> Rifles; Private B.C. Cameron,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Bernard Cuthbert Cameron from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672255}}</ref> Rifles; Private F.S. Drysdale,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Frank Stuart Drysdale from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/7672284}}</ref> Rifles; Private A.J.G. Holt,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Alec John Grice Holt from Old Bancroftians Website|url=http://www.bancroftians.net/cgi-bin/bancms3.pl?dn=centholtajg}}</ref> Rifles and Stoker 1st Class C. F. Anscombe,<ref>{{cite web|title=Life story of Charles Frederick Anscombe from Lives of the First World War|url=https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/6387895}}</ref> HMS Cadmus.<ref>{{cite web|title=Roll of Honour|url=http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Overseas/SingaporeMutiny.html|website=roll-of-honour.com}}</ref> Three Britons and one German were wounded but survived the attack, as did eight [[Royal Army Medical Corps]] personnel in the camp hospital, including one who managed to escape under heavy fire to raise the alarm. The mutineers tried to persuade the Germans to join them, but many of the latter were shaken by the sudden violence and reluctant to do so. Some German sailors and reservists wanted to join with the mutineers, but the majority adopted a neutral stance, refusing to accept rifles from the Indians.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|pages=62–71|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Herbert|first=Edwin|title=Small Wars and Skirmishes: 1902–1918 – Early Twentieth-century Colonial Campaigns in Africa, Asia and the Americas|publisher=Foundry books|year=2003|page=223|isbn=978-1-901543-05-6}}</ref> Thirty-five Germans escaped but the rest remained in the barracks.<ref name=Sareen/> | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
==Final suppression== | ==Final suppression== | ||
On 17 February, the French cruiser ''[[French armoured cruiser Montcalm|Montcalm]],'' followed by the Russian auxiliary cruiser ''Orel'' and Japanese warships<ref>{{cite book|first=John|last=Terraine|pages=54–55|title=The First World War 1914-18|isbn=978-0-333-37913-4}}</ref> ''[[Japanese cruiser Otowa|Otowa]]'' and ''[[Japanese cruiser Tsushima|Tsushima]]'' arrived.<ref>{{cite book|title=Secret Documents on Singapore Mutiny 1915|last=Sareen|first=T.R.|date=1995|pages=14–15|publisher=Mounto Publishing House|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-81-7451-009-9}}</ref> Seventy-five Japanese sailors, 22 Russians and 190 French marines were landed to round up mutineers who had taken refuge in the jungle to the north of Singapore.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|pages=172–175|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> They were joined in this operation by 60 soldiers of the 36th Sikhs who were passing through Singapore, plus Singaporean police, British sailors and Malay States Volunteer Rifles. Lacking strong leadership, the mutiny had started to lose direction – a large number of the mutineers surrendered immediately, and the rest scattered in small groups into the jungles. Many tried to cross the [[Strait of Johore]], but were quickly rounded up by the Royal Johor Military Force.<ref name=execution/> While local media spoke of serious battles there were in fact only minor skirmishes between the allied landing parties and the now demoralized mutineers. By the evening of 17 February, 432 mutineers had been captured.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|pages=175–179|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> | On 17 February, the French cruiser ''[[French armoured cruiser Montcalm|Montcalm]],'' followed by the Russian auxiliary cruiser ''Orel'' and Japanese warships<ref>{{cite book|first=John|last=Terraine|pages=54–55|title=The First World War 1914-18|year=1984 |isbn=978-0-333-37913-4}}</ref> ''[[Japanese cruiser Otowa|Otowa]]'' and ''[[Japanese cruiser Tsushima|Tsushima]]'' arrived.<ref>{{cite book|title=Secret Documents on Singapore Mutiny 1915|last=Sareen|first=T.R.|date=1995|pages=14–15|publisher=Mounto Publishing House|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-81-7451-009-9}}</ref> Seventy-five Japanese sailors, 22 Russians and 190 French marines were landed to round up mutineers who had taken refuge in the jungle to the north of Singapore.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|pages=172–175|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> They were joined in this operation by 60 soldiers of the 36th Sikhs who were passing through Singapore, plus Singaporean police, British sailors and Malay States Volunteer Rifles. Lacking strong leadership, the mutiny had started to lose direction – a large number of the mutineers surrendered immediately, and the rest scattered in small groups into the jungles. Many tried to cross the [[Strait of Johore]], but were quickly rounded up by the Royal Johor Military Force.<ref name=execution/> While local media spoke of serious battles there were in fact only minor skirmishes between the allied landing parties and the now demoralized mutineers. By the evening of 17 February, 432 mutineers had been captured.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|pages=175–179|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref> | ||
On 20 February, companies of the [[King's Shropshire Light Infantry|1st/4th Battalion, King's Shropshire Light Infantry (Territorials)]] arrived from Rangoon to relieve the sailors and the marines. They succeeded in quickly rounding up the last of the mutineers. | On 20 February, companies of the [[King's Shropshire Light Infantry|1st/4th Battalion, King's Shropshire Light Infantry (Territorials)]] arrived from Rangoon to relieve the sailors and the marines. They succeeded in quickly rounding up the last of the mutineers. | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
On 23 February 1915, a Court of Inquiry was held, at first meeting ''in camera'' but then in public sessions. It prepared a 450-page report dated 15 May 1915. Although extensive discord amongst both officers and men of the 5th Light Infantry was identified, the cause of the mutiny was not conclusively established. The focus of the report was on possible external German influences, plus internal regimental causes of the mutiny.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|page=216|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Secret Documents on Singapore Mutiny 1915|last=Sareen|first=T.R.|date=1995|others=Report Section II|publisher=Mounto Publishing House|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-81-7451-009-9}}</ref> | On 23 February 1915, a Court of Inquiry was held, at first meeting ''in camera'' but then in public sessions. It prepared a 450-page report dated 15 May 1915. Although extensive discord amongst both officers and men of the 5th Light Infantry was identified, the cause of the mutiny was not conclusively established. The focus of the report was on possible external German influences, plus internal regimental causes of the mutiny.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Harper, R.W.E.|author2=Miller, Harry|title=Singapore Mutiny|page=216|date=1984|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Singapore|isbn=978-0-19-582549-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Secret Documents on Singapore Mutiny 1915|last=Sareen|first=T.R.|date=1995|others=Report Section II|publisher=Mounto Publishing House|location=New Delhi|isbn=978-81-7451-009-9}}</ref> | ||
More than 205 sepoys were tried by [[court-martial]], and 47 were publicly executed,<ref name=tri1>{{cite web|url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/life-style/step-back-to-move-forward/419823.html|title=Step back to move forward|website=The tribune|date=10 June | More than 205 sepoys were tried by [[court-martial]], and 47 were publicly executed,<ref name=tri1>{{cite web|url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/life-style/step-back-to-move-forward/419823.html|title=Step back to move forward|website=The tribune|date=10 June 2022}}</ref> including Kassim Mansoor. Most soldiers killed were Muslims from the [[Hisar district]] and [[Rohtak district]] of current [[Haryana]] state of India.<ref name=tri1/> Nur Alam Shah was not put on trial, although he was exposed as an active Indian nationalist with links to Ghadar.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ban|first1=Kah Choon|title=The Untold Story of Special Branch Operations in Singapore 1915–1942|date=2001|pages=28–29|publisher=SNP Media Asia|location=Singapore|isbn=978-981-4071-02-4}}</ref> Instead, he was detained and deported, as the British did not want to stir up trouble among their Muslim subjects. Sixty-four mutineers were transported for life, and 73 were given terms of imprisonment ranging from seven to 20 years. The public executions by firing squad took place at Outram Prison, and were witnessed by an estimated 15,000 people. ''[[The Straits Times]]'' reported: | ||
{{cquote|An enormous crowd, reliably estimated at more than 15,000 people, was packed on the slopes of Sepoy Lines looking down on the scene. The square as before was composed of regulars, local volunteers and Shropshire under the command of Colonel Derrick of the Singapore Volunteer Corps (SVC). The firing party consisted of men from the various companies of SVC under Captain Tongue and Lieutenant Blair and Hay.<ref name=execution>{{cite news|url=http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19150326-1.2.60|title=Execution of Twenty Two Renegades|page=7|date=26 March 1915|work=[[The Straits Times]]}}</ref>}} | {{cquote|An enormous crowd, reliably estimated at more than 15,000 people, was packed on the slopes of Sepoy Lines looking down on the scene. The square as before was composed of regulars, local volunteers and Shropshire under the command of Colonel Derrick of the Singapore Volunteer Corps (SVC). The firing party consisted of men from the various companies of SVC under Captain Tongue and Lieutenant Blair and Hay.<ref name=execution>{{cite news|url=http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19150326-1.2.60|title=Execution of Twenty Two Renegades|page=7|date=26 March 1915|work=[[The Straits Times]]}}</ref>}} | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
===Role of pan-Islamism=== | ===Role of pan-Islamism=== | ||
Within less than a week of the mutiny, a Court of Inquiry was set up to investigate and collect evidence for the trial for the mutineers. Although the Court of Inquiry was meant to take place behind closed doors, in accordance with standard military procedures, the proceeding was held in public instead. According to Harper and Miller this was to give the public the impression that the mutineers “were being tried for mutiny and shooting with intent to kill and not, as alleged for refusal to go to | Within less than a week of the mutiny, a Court of Inquiry was set up to investigate and collect evidence for the trial for the mutineers. Although the Court of Inquiry was meant to take place behind closed doors, in accordance with standard military procedures, the proceeding was held in public instead. According to Harper and Miller this was to give the public the impression that the mutineers “were being tried for mutiny and shooting with intent to kill and not, as alleged for refusal to go to the Ottoman Empire".<ref name=SingaporeMutiny/> Although the Court of Inquiry was clearly trying to downplay the link between Turkey and the mutiny, with the declassification of new documents and evidence, another perception has emerged in explaining the cause of the mutiny and that is the role of pan-Islamism. Contrary to official British colonial authorities, the mutiny was not an isolated case of a purely local affair but was instead part of a wider anti-British and pro-Muslim battle. | ||
When Turkey decided to join in the war on the side of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy), the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed V. Reshad (1844–1918) declared a jihad against the Allied Powers (Britain, France and Russia) and issued a fatwa calling on Muslims all around the world to throw their lot with the Caliphate.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ooi|first1=Keat Gin|title=Between Homeland and "Ummah": Re-visiting the 1915 Singapore Mutiny of the 5th Light Infantry Regiment of the Indian Army|journal=Social Scientist|date=July–August 2014|volume=42|issue=7/8|pages=85–94}}</ref> This move had a huge impact on Muslims throughout the world as the Ottoman Sultan was revered as the Caliph of Islam and long considered by Indian Muslims as the final bulwark of Muslim power following the collapse of the Mughal empire in India.<ref name=Racial>{{cite journal|last1=A. Noor|first1=Farish|title=Racial Profiling' Revisited: The 1915 Indian Sepoy Mutiny in Singapore and the Impact of Profiling on Religious and Ethnic Minorities|journal=Politics, Religion & Ideology|date=2011|volume=1|issue=12|pages=89–100|doi=10.1080/21567689.2011.564404|s2cid=144958370}}</ref> Overnight, Muslims serving under the British Army, such as the sepoys, faced an existential dilemma and their loyalty being torn between their ummah (community, brotherhood) and their British colonial superiors. | When Turkey decided to join in the war on the side of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy), the Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed V. Reshad (1844–1918) declared a jihad against the Allied Powers (Britain, France and Russia) and issued a fatwa calling on Muslims all around the world to throw their lot with the Caliphate.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ooi|first1=Keat Gin|title=Between Homeland and "Ummah": Re-visiting the 1915 Singapore Mutiny of the 5th Light Infantry Regiment of the Indian Army|journal=Social Scientist|date=July–August 2014|volume=42|issue=7/8|pages=85–94}}</ref> This move had a huge impact on Muslims throughout the world as the Ottoman Sultan was revered as the Caliph of Islam and long considered by Indian Muslims as the final bulwark of Muslim power following the collapse of the Mughal empire in India.<ref name=Racial>{{cite journal|last1=A. Noor|first1=Farish|title=Racial Profiling' Revisited: The 1915 Indian Sepoy Mutiny in Singapore and the Impact of Profiling on Religious and Ethnic Minorities|journal=Politics, Religion & Ideology|date=2011|volume=1|issue=12|pages=89–100|doi=10.1080/21567689.2011.564404|s2cid=144958370}}</ref> Overnight, Muslims serving under the British Army, such as the sepoys, faced an existential dilemma and their loyalty being torn between their ummah (community, brotherhood) and their British colonial superiors. | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
It is difficult to identify any one reason as being the main cause or catalyst of the mutiny. However, a recent perspective has emerged of the role of global connections. The mutiny had revealed the permeable nature of colonial boundaries and the way that external influences affected the British possessions in Southeast Asia. The sepoys of the 5th Light Infantry were constantly receiving information about what was happening outside of Singapore. | It is difficult to identify any one reason as being the main cause or catalyst of the mutiny. However, a recent perspective has emerged of the role of global connections. The mutiny had revealed the permeable nature of colonial boundaries and the way that external influences affected the British possessions in Southeast Asia. The sepoys of the 5th Light Infantry were constantly receiving information about what was happening outside of Singapore. | ||
The British Court of Inquiry speculated that as the news of the fatwa issued by the Ottoman Sultan spread, an anti-British movement spearheaded by the [[Ghadar Movement|Ghadar Party]] was also disseminating special pamphlets in a variety of languages which were reaching through secret channels into the hands of the sepoys. Acrimonious slogans against the British only fuelled the anti-colonial sentiment among the sepoys. Some of the slogans were “the wicked English and their allies are now attacking Islam, but the German Emperor and the Sultan of Turkey have sworn to liberate Asia from the tyranny. Now is the time to rise.... Only your strength and religious zeal are required”. The sepoys were clearly being bombarded with a lot of anti-British sentiments while being stationed on the small island of Singapore.<ref name=Global>{{cite journal|last1=Streets-Salter|first1=Heather|title=The Local was Global: The Singapore mutiny of 1915|journal=Journal of World History|date=September 2013|volume=24|issue=3|pages=539–576|doi=10.1353/jwh.2013.0066|s2cid=201778865}}</ref> However, Ghadar sources in the United States of America revealed that there was very little evidence to connect the Singapore Mutiny to the Ghadar Party itself, and even though the Ghadar party did seek to take credit for the mutiny after the event, the Ghadar Party headquarters in San Francisco had so little contact with the accused in the ensuing trials, that its publications were reporting that the "Indians of Singapore were still executing the British" and that "some of the portion is under the possession of the Ghadar party' as late as April 1915.<ref>{{cite book |url= https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Testimonies_of_Indian_Soldiers_and_t/ZcBnAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=in+truth,+there+was+very+little+evidence+to+connect+the+singapore+mutiny+to+the+ghadar+party,+or+ghadar+to+mansur+or+alam+shah.+members+of+the+ghadar+party+did+seek+to+take+credit+for+the+mutiny+after+the+event.&pg=PT106&printsec=frontcover |title= The Testimonies of Indian Soldiers and the Two World Wars: Between Self and Sepoy |date= 2014 |author= Gajendra Singh |publisher= Bloomsbury Publishing }}</ref> | The British Court of Inquiry speculated that as the news of the fatwa issued by the Ottoman Sultan spread, an anti-British movement spearheaded by the [[Ghadar Movement|Ghadar Party]] was also disseminating special pamphlets in a variety of languages which were reaching through secret channels into the hands of the sepoys. Acrimonious slogans against the British only fuelled the anti-colonial sentiment among the sepoys. Some of the slogans were “the wicked English and their allies are now attacking Islam, but the German Emperor and the Sultan of Turkey have sworn to liberate Asia from the tyranny. Now is the time to rise.... Only your strength and religious zeal are required”. The sepoys were clearly being bombarded with a lot of anti-British sentiments while being stationed on the small island of Singapore.<ref name=Global>{{cite journal|last1=Streets-Salter|first1=Heather|title=The Local was Global: The Singapore mutiny of 1915|journal=Journal of World History|date=September 2013|volume=24|issue=3|pages=539–576|doi=10.1353/jwh.2013.0066|s2cid=201778865}}</ref> However, Ghadar sources in the United States of America revealed that there was very little evidence to connect the Singapore Mutiny to the Ghadar Party itself, and even though the Ghadar party did seek to take credit for the mutiny after the event, the Ghadar Party headquarters in San Francisco had so little contact with the accused in the ensuing trials, that its publications were reporting that the "Indians of Singapore were still executing the British" and that "some of the portion is under the possession of the Ghadar party' as late as April 1915.<ref>{{cite book |url= https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Testimonies_of_Indian_Soldiers_and_t/ZcBnAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=in+truth,+there+was+very+little+evidence+to+connect+the+singapore+mutiny+to+the+ghadar+party,+or+ghadar+to+mansur+or+alam+shah.+members+of+the+ghadar+party+did+seek+to+take+credit+for+the+mutiny+after+the+event.&pg=PT106&printsec=frontcover |title= The Testimonies of Indian Soldiers and the Two World Wars: Between Self and Sepoy |date= 2014 |author= Gajendra Singh |publisher= Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn= 9781780937601 }}</ref> | ||
There was also awareness in Singapore of the [[Komagata Maru incident]] in which Canadian authorities refused to allow a ship with 376 Indian passengers to land and forced them to stay aboard for two months in difficult conditions.<ref name=Global/> On its way back to India, while the ship docked in Singapore, the Governor-General of Singapore remarked that “though the ship had no communication with the land, yet it left a bad effect” on the Indian troops stationed there.<ref name=Global/> It appears that information was reaching the sepoys through a wide range of channels, from origins as diverse and distant as North America, Britain, the Ottoman Empire and India. Much of this information was obtained locally, but even so it was being mediated through a host of international and external actors, including a wide array of Indians from across the subcontinent, British officers and Arab and Malay coreligionists. | There was also awareness in Singapore of the [[Komagata Maru incident]] in which Canadian authorities refused to allow a ship with 376 Indian passengers to land and forced them to stay aboard for two months in difficult conditions.<ref name=Global/> On its way back to India, while the ship docked in Singapore, the Governor-General of Singapore remarked that “though the ship had no communication with the land, yet it left a bad effect” on the Indian troops stationed there.<ref name=Global/> It appears that information was reaching the sepoys through a wide range of channels, from origins as diverse and distant as North America, Britain, the Ottoman Empire and India. Much of this information was obtained locally, but even so it was being mediated through a host of international and external actors, including a wide array of Indians from across the subcontinent, British officers and Arab and Malay coreligionists. | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
[[Category:Indian diaspora in Singapore]] | [[Category:Indian diaspora in Singapore]] | ||
[[Category:Mutinies]] | [[Category:Mutinies]] | ||
[[Category:Events that led to courts-martial]] | |||
[[Category:Military discipline and World War I]] | |||
[[Category:1915 in Singapore|Singapore Mutiny, 1915]] | [[Category:1915 in Singapore|Singapore Mutiny, 1915]] | ||
[[Category:1915 murders in Asia]] | [[Category:1915 murders in Asia]] | ||