yulzari
Staff Sergeant
The Indian Army, in a deployment other than on it's own, came under the operational command of the theatre commander in the person of his subordinate commanders but functioned internally as a separate army under it's own officers and with it's own supply where relevant. They had their own weapon purchases and special foods supplies. In effect, outside India. It all depended on whether the Indian Army was deployed with units of the British Army in support or the other way around. Remember, it came to fruition as the armed force of the Honourable East India Company and was the largest volunteer army in the world.
Thus, whilst nominally autonomous, abroad it usually functioned as part of an Empire force but as discrete Indian units. The ultimate expression of the autonomy of India was the war in Arabia post WW1 where the India Office was backing and supplying the Saudis and the (UK) Foreign Office was backing and supplying the Hashemites of Hejaz. In other words the Foreign Office and India Office were fighting a proxy war between each other. The India Office won, thus we have Saudi Arabia. The India Office remit of influence ran from Persia (Iran) to Burma with close interests in Arabia and Tibet to Ceylon and they pretty well ran WW1 in Mesopotamia (Iraq).
Behind it all was the historical normality for the British to incorporate and work with other armies. In Europe in WW2 they commanded Indian, Czech, Polish, Belgian etc units as well as Canadians all under the same overarching command but with their own military laws, internal commands and a political route via their own governments. In operational terms they formed parts of one whole. The French did not tend to play nicely and cuddled up to the Americans who had no experience of commanding foreign armies and let them get away with doing their own thing. Traditionally it was the Germans who worked with the British and under their command.
I liked the British comedian Micheal Bentine who would demand access to the Peruvian consul if things went wrong whilst he was in the RAF being also a Peruvian citizen.
Thus, whilst nominally autonomous, abroad it usually functioned as part of an Empire force but as discrete Indian units. The ultimate expression of the autonomy of India was the war in Arabia post WW1 where the India Office was backing and supplying the Saudis and the (UK) Foreign Office was backing and supplying the Hashemites of Hejaz. In other words the Foreign Office and India Office were fighting a proxy war between each other. The India Office won, thus we have Saudi Arabia. The India Office remit of influence ran from Persia (Iran) to Burma with close interests in Arabia and Tibet to Ceylon and they pretty well ran WW1 in Mesopotamia (Iraq).
Behind it all was the historical normality for the British to incorporate and work with other armies. In Europe in WW2 they commanded Indian, Czech, Polish, Belgian etc units as well as Canadians all under the same overarching command but with their own military laws, internal commands and a political route via their own governments. In operational terms they formed parts of one whole. The French did not tend to play nicely and cuddled up to the Americans who had no experience of commanding foreign armies and let them get away with doing their own thing. Traditionally it was the Germans who worked with the British and under their command.
I liked the British comedian Micheal Bentine who would demand access to the Peruvian consul if things went wrong whilst he was in the RAF being also a Peruvian citizen.
