Nepal Company War or Anglo-Nepal war Situation: Geo Strategic- political
Download 0.54 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The growing Distrust
- The Economic Causes
- The China Factor
- The Territorial Disputes
- Failure of Diplomacy
- Self over-Estimation
- Cause Summed Up
- Organisations and Tactics that Made Fighting Possible The Gorkhas
Nepal Company War or Anglo-Nepal war Situation: Geo Strategic- Political Lord Minto, the Governor General (1807-1872) had maintained a low profile in India, especially against the Gorkhas. His consideration had been due primarily to the fear of Napoleonic invasion of India in collusion with or without Russia. Later Franco-Russian threat had made the British do their worthless forays into Afghanistan and place forces in North West Frontier Provinces- a folly they realized too late to rectify. A bigger folly was, of course, their imagining a Franco-Nepalese alliance in India. In 1813, the British thus far had secured six leading regions in India and remained contended with what Minto had taken over. These included: Mysore, Travancore, Baroda, Poona, Hyderabad and Oudh. But Gwalior, Indore, Nagpur, resented the British efforts and began to prepare to avenge their recent defeats. The weak and disunited Rajputs of Rajputana remained highly vulnerable. The Rajputs' vulnerabilities emanated from their dynastic ego and jealousy on whose account they had been nabbed one after another, by the Moghuls. The pindaris lid by Chitu and Amir Khan too hated the expanding power of the British. In Punjab, Ranjit Singh was growing powerful, though the British had attempted to quarantine him through the Amiratsar Treaty of 1809. Lord Moira Who took over as Governor General and Commander-In-Chief Indian Army in 1813 was burning with the ambition of leaving an empire for the British and a name for himself. Fresh from the American War, he evolved a strategy to bite more pieces of land and humble the opposition into submission by either alliance or attrition. He wanted his name to be added to those British who grabbed the maxium territory in India. If he could not help retain it in America, there was a chance in India. it was thus to be his life's opportunity. Gorkhas, besides the Marathas and the Sikhs were regarded as the third dangerous power the British had to contend with or defeat. The growing Distrust By late 1790s, the British received a surprisingly favourable situation: they had firm control over the Indo-Gangetic Valley of the Oudh Raj, though Marathas still had their sway over Delhi; the internal dissension in the Nepal Durbar was creating situation for its King to abdicate in favour of his infant son and proceed to Benaras. Here he would seek virtual security of the British and could be exploited. The British dreams for expanding trade with the Tartary and China over the Himanalyan regions, brightened up.1 Also, the house of Oudh was disintegrating and the British had exploited it as a treasure house or an alternative 'Bank of England' to meet their adhoc financial requirements. For the British, at this stage, trade, in fact, the Sine-quo-non. The trade of East India Company to Tibet and China involved, in the west, a passage throught the Gorkha occupied Kumaon, Garhwal, the Punjab Hill States, and in the east through Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan. These areas were seen as essential trade-corridors.2 In his efforts for trade, Warren Hastings had to infiltrate Bogle to Tibet in 1774 to explore the best possibility. The trading centres in Tibet were at Yatung, Lhasa, Shigatse, Gartok and Leh, in Ladakh, The traders of the Company knew fo " The great commerce which naturally ought to exist and which formerly did subsist between the vast Cis and Trans-Himalayan Regions."3 Territorial possessions, willy-nilly, was becoming essential by the British, for which Moira saw an overall favorable situation under development. A ray of hove really signaled from within Nepal and it was no less than, as we said earlier, a frustrated King Rana Bahadur Shah in abdication, who was prepared to succumb to means and machinations that could regain his throne at Kathmandu, once again. And he did what the Afghan Kings ofter did. He signed a parallel treaty called " TREATY WITH RAJA OF NEPAL- 1801 BETWEEN MAHARAJA AND THE MOST NOBLE GOVERNOR GENERAL MARQUIS WELLESIEY".4 Such fraudulent a document it was that it raised shock waves in the Durbar. Fearing not only the demise of the Raja, the Durbar, under duress agreed to sign a similar treaty something like the treaty of 1792-93 which Kirkpatrick promoted. Trade with Tibet and China was thought to be best provided through the Gorkha territories. although it later proved without adequate foundation. The Durbar saw the British efforts leading nothing but to colonization. With the characteristic British penchant for intrigues, subversion and embroidering threats, such as threat from China, the Franco-Russian threat, these, were hoped to provide better modus vivendi for trade. But the Nepalese trusted neither the British intentions nor encouraged their overtures. Then followed Knox's5 much debated and much hated mission to Nepal as agent of the Governor General at Kathmandu. Knox's was, undoubtedly an undesirable mission. And little wonder that he was made to vacate the office within one year. The fundamental cause of war that followed had, in fact, its roots in the failed Knox mission. In 1767 a similar, though more hostile, mission of going to the aid Malla Raja by Kinloch, had already sowed sufficient seed of hatred and distrust for the Firingis amongst the Gorkhas. Vansittart recorded the Nepalese feelings that prevailed then: "Regarding throwing open the country to the Europeans, the Gorkhas have a saying with the merchants come the musket and with the Bible comes the Bayonet. They have always shown greatest objection to admitting any European into Nepal and they seem to consider that, were they to relax this rule, their independence, of which they are extremely proud, would shortly be lost".6 The Gorkha repugnance to call Europeans to Nepal was both from fear of their swamping the Nepalese trade and resorting to anti-national-tricks. It was, however only in 1800s that situation deteriorated. Kirkpatrick had noted. " Notwithstanding the narrow spirit which directs the commercial concern of this people the government affords on the whole, considerable protection to foreign merchants." 7 He also remarked that the standard gold coin was 2 percent inferior to the Calcutta Mohr. The British began looking for shawl wool from Ladakh nad its being knitted by the Kashmiri weavers. Bogle and Moorcroft, as we saw, were sent for acousting the market and bringing the samples. The Sikhs of Ranjit Singh also were carrying out similar trade at the time. Such fears-which prevailed-then saw Capuchin (Italian) missionaries being evicted out of Nepal as from Tibet. The repugnance that spread among the Nepalese for the Europeans resulted in the British image turning as tyrants and the biggest violators of human rights. For the Nepalese' three Ks, Kinloch Kirkpatrick and Knox, became the symbols of the British threat of Nepal.8 And events that followed, created ruptures irreparably. The Economic Causes The economic cause constituted the major cause of conflict with Nepal. The Treaty of Commerce was akin to the present from of GATT- General Agreement of Tariffs and Trades. The British made constant efforts to persuade the Nepalese government to allow them their trade through Nepal and through the Indian territories in their occupation. Form Kirkpatrick, the y moved to Maulvi Abdul Qader (1795) and later Knox (1801), but the Nepalese Durbar refused to budge an inch. Added to the list of causes came the land-grab avarice, which brought the Gorkhas into India and which became the ambition of the British, as they saw a golden land laid before them. David Ochterlony, then an agent at Ludhiana grudgingly noted in 1811 his views on the Gorkha territorial control:" They are now in undisputed possession of the whole country from the Jamuna to Sultaj, extending to the north to the dependencies of the Empire of China with the exception of Kinnaur which the Raja of BAsahar had been allowed to retain."9 On 24 August 1814, he for example, noted of Dehra Dun as a " potentially thriving entrepot for Trabs-Himalayan trade". and contemplated annexing Garhwal not so much with the view to revenue but for security of commercial communications with the country where the shawl wool is produced. Soon they got to know that Kumaon provided batter facility for trade with Tibet- China. Therefore, the annexation of these two areas became part of their strategic objectives. Out of such necessity for trade and its security, the British historians also saw the need for "preserving the moral nad physical energies of the parent country (through) the bales and mountains of the Indian Alps."10 While trade, indeed, was the major objective of the company, out of its, grew a concept of 'political safety', which ipso-facto meant a strategy of dissuasion and larger areas of occupation. That, it was a flawed strategy is explained by PJ Marshal:11 "Political safety meant military preparedness. The military expenditure for 1761-62 to 1770-71 was 44 percent of the total spending of 22 million pounds. War and diplomacy rater than trade and improvement…most of the soldiers-would-be politicians and Governor Generals rarely understood. The political safety of Bengal was their first priority and they interpreted safety as requiring the subjugation of Mysore, the Marahas the Pindaris, Nepal and the Burmese". This flawed perception, thus became the second major cause for the war. The China Factor The China factor also built up. The Nepleese had placated it as part of their psychological canard that a treaty alliance existed with China after the 1792 war. So effective was the Nepalese demonstration that the British also began to regard Nepal as vassal of China and that, an attack on Nepal would provoke China, Which it could ill-afford. Walter Hamilton records that in 1802 when Gott was deputed by Wellesly to examine the forest of Kumaon, the Gorkha commander expressed great apprehension as his arrival would be seen a provocation. He told him that the Emperor of China had threatened to depose the Raja of Nepal if he permitted the Europeans to explore his country. Whether deliberately planted or not, the British seemed to bite at the bait.12 This impression lingered on. But over a period of time as situation developed and intelligence improved, the British began to take limited risks in dealing with the Nepalese – Chinese friendship or alliance. Its best example is seen ( and we perforce jump the gun) in the directive that was given to General Marley, tasked to advance to Kathmandu in 1814-15. He was directed to inform the Chinese, if confronted, that "the British objective of operations was only punitive and not acquisitive."13 It is historically surmised that though the Knox mission was the great political affrontary of the time and that Kathmandu Durbar was in tatters, the British impulse to invade Nepal earlier, was prevented, to a large extent, by this imagined Nepalese-Chinese alliance. The Territorial Disputes The territorial disputes also built up to augment the hostility, anguish and vendetta: Kheri, Sheoraj, Butwal. 22 villages near Rautehat- Jaunpur. Bhim Nagar in Morung. Villages near Pinjore.14 In these cases neither the Gorkhas nor the British could put up convincing cases of defence or legitimacy, and enquiries made by Young, Ochterlony and Bradshaw made no headway. The Gorkhas stuck obdurately to Sheoraj and Butwal, which though part of Palpa-Tansen, were contested by the British to be part of Oudh under their protection. So erroneous had been the impression that late historians like J Talboy Wheeler called it, " gradual absorption of the British territories by the Gorkhas." In consonance with this thinking even political agents like William Fraser observed: "This power emboldened by a long course of success nad conquest had commenced a deliberate course of insult towards its (British) lower ministers which at length became absolutely necessary to Nepal."15 A case that then developed was one of the two robbers having plundered a house, use morally viable adjectives in their own defence and justification. The British usage of the Gorkha claims as "Inadmissible", and their ambitions as "insatiable thirst or ambition and limited power" , fitted into this theme. And the Gorkhas calling for an alliance with the Indiana states to throw the Firingis out, was no less.16 Moira, in his report to the Directors had described it as " Gorkha passion for war" and added that they " had an overwhelming opinion of themselves, so inaccurate were their notions of our resource."17 However, BD sanwal felt that " reasonable points in favour of the Nepalse government were kept aside and unnecessary emphasis was laid on the genuineness."18 Panderal Mooon was convinced that "the British claims were not in all cases indisputable." They, were, is fact, untenable.19 The root cause- even if an auxiliary root-of war between the Company and Nepal as Forbes said was due to the desire of the Barons of Nepal to extend their sway over the Zamindars; and, irrespective of what the British pipers might tell of the glory in the filed, it was the shareholder in London and Courts of Kathmandu that called the tune.20 The both set of the people were hell-bent to exercise their own so called rights. The White Man's Superiority: A Psyche of 'Super-race' There is an innate psychological urge among men and women- and also in races- to dominate the others. It has taken forms of colour, caste, creed religion, ethnicity and so on. The Jewish diaspora, the Aryan migration, the Europisation of the two Americas and Australia are some of the examples. In the 19th Century, Europe gave this expression through trade and colonization by white races, then regarded as superior to the natives. Its effect, though not marked, nor admitted, needs to be seen in the context of Anglo- Gorkha War. Major General Rollo Gillespie saw the Gorkha challenge to the British supremacy as "Opinion is everything in such a country as India: and whenever the natives shall begin to lose their reverence for the English arms, our superiority in other respects will quickly sink into contempt. Forebeareance under repeated insults committed by those lawless marauders who acknowledge no law ! But their convenience unavoidably would hanve brought our national character into disrepute among the various nations to the east." It was this assumption of psychology of colonization that served the British rule. Most of the m tried to establish that this was not to be true. And a new twist as even the annexation of India by the British in the words of JH Batten (in 1815 official Report on the Province of Kemaon) opined that ".. finally peace and plenty would smile on the very plains invited to the land neither by Mohemmedans nor Hindus but by the Christians of a Western Atlantic Islands." From this rose another need- the character and leadership in the Indians to defend themselves which the British found lacking. Sir Thomas Munro, Governor of Madras said of it in1824: " It we pursue steadily in proper measures we shall in time so far improve he character of Indian subjects to enable them to protect themselves. "This very feeling continued as Filed Marshal Roberts C-in-C 1885-93 reflected: "Native officers and Eastern races however brave and accustomed to war do not possess qualities that make good leaders of men." Such views also led to the hatred for the Eurasians or the Anglo-Indians. One thing about history is that while its larger cycles might be repeating themselves but they constantly discard and disprove hurriedly formed human theories. By 1945, it became clear that bravery was not the pre-serve of Whiteman lesser still of the self-styled martial people. The Gorkhas dicidedly broke this myth in the Anglo-Gorkha war. The fallibility of the British soldiers and arms was so distinctly prominent that in the wrds of "Edward Bishop as "recently as 1929 military historians avoiding the issue commented that the questions of Moira's columns redounded so little to our credit."21 But such complexion-oriented complexes then had deeper roots. Envy also became the cause of clash with the Gorkhas. They were called " unpyincipled horde" and those who falsely " struck awe among various states." childish, it might appear, but it was true. The final cause was built by the May 18, 1814 incident in which a post below palpa was overrun by the Gorkhas. It hadeen worked out as the ultimate overt excuse by the British. It provided what Edward Thornton remarked as providing "anxious display of the Governor General's military talents."22 Then no amount of pleadings for sanity could prevent the British from entering into war. The Gorkhas had even offered to hand over the disputed villages to the British, if that was what could end the dispute and the war. Failure of Diplomacy Failure of diplomacy emerges as another cause. The main characters were, a brusque and ambitionus- Moira on the one hand and an inexperienced, though intelligent and patriotic Bhim Sen Thapa, as Prime Minister of Nepal, on the other. Moira had been prejudiced and jaundiced by people like Paris Bradshaw who saw the world being divided between the British virtue and others' vices. Then there was Ochterlony who suggested " to repel the present and prevent future aggression it will always be necessary to convince Amar Singh that his hills are not to us inaccessible and his forts impregnable."23 Despite entreaties from Bam Shah, Amar Singh and others, Bhim Sen Thapa also obdurately stuck to his stance, which though not very conciliatory, was dignified. The Gorkhas did every thing to prevent the war form breaking out which even Penderal Moon observed: " They had no desire for war themselves but were unwilling to be intimidated; and remembering how the British had been repulsed at Bharatpur, hoped to put up successful resistance in the mountain-fastnes."24 But Moira still chose to call it as the Gorkha passion for war. And to add to it, Ochterloney beefed up Moira's obsession by writing back to him: "The expulsion of the Gorkha power from the country between the Sutlaj and Jumna is a necessary measure against the government of Nepal." Among others who advised Moira-but were over – ruled against the war was H St J Tucker, Wellesley's old financial adviser who deplored the risk by saying: "What an opportunity for the Marathas, while we are knocking our heads against those mountain."25 Self over-Estimation Over estimation of personal capabilities both by the Gorkhas and the British served as a good cause for the war. The Gorkhas, saw the British failures at Bharatpur (1805), the deceit adopted by the British to defeat and kill Tipu Sultan (1799), as examples of their moral bankruptcy, as against their own strength. This strength also emerged from the undue potential being given to the mountains that geographically defended Nepal from India. Bhim Sen Thapa declared: "The Chinese once made war to seek peace. How will the English be able to penetrate into our hills ? We shall on our exertions be able to oppose … our hills and fastness are work of God and are impregnable" 26 To that Moira added that the Gorkhas had inaccurate notions of his resources. It became a case of intimidation and muscle flexing. Cause Summed Up The basic cause for war was thus a greed to grab territory and power both by the Company and the rising Gorkha power. The Company needed it for trade and prosperity and the Gorkhas for power and sustenance. Both had found the Indian states weak and subservient. Therefore, there could not be any better situation for both of them of claim and counter-claim their so called rights to fight. What added to the British belief that the Gorkhas were 'conquerable'? is the bigger question of the war. For, unless the vulnerability of na enemy is known, a state of deterrence is forced to maintain. It is only after own superiority is well established that a recourse to war is adopted. The capability of an adversary is estimated on what Duke of Wellington called: 'One's ability to see the other side of the hill.27 The British intelligence, even by standard of those times, was superb. They had also hoped that their old stratagem of subversion would succeed if their military prowess failed. The instrument of propaganda too was expected to yield results. Subversion tactics played a considerable part in this war both at preliminary stage and during the war. The British had made it a fine art of conquering not only the Gorkhas but all of India. In that they always targets. They repeatedly offered the temptations of Jagir to Amar Singh and pensions to others. To Bam Shah, their offers ranged from Governorship of Province of Doti to all other temptations. Though there were signals, albeit, wrong to and from Bam Shah, it was absolutely certain that he never bargained his loyalty to the British offers.28 In the list of subversions, every British official made deliberate attempt to either win over the Gorkhas or black-mail them. Part of this technique did succeed when fighting broke out. The British ability to create cleft among the already divided Indian states and the non-existent Asian solidarity was another aspect. They hoped they will be able to effectively employ them in achieving their strategic aims. Through a 'Proclamation' they had offered adequate temptations to the rulers to restore their states to them . Similar gestures were made to some of the Gorkhas commanders who, in their view, were 'malcontent and dissatisfied' with Kathmandu. All this had also been fed to them though their adventurous lots such as Moorcroft and others.29 Organisations and Tactics that Made Fighting Possible The Gorkhas The Regmi Papers place the strength of the Gorkha Army as 18,000 in AD 1800 which had mobilisational capability of 40,000. He lists out four battalions-Kalidaksh, suboorj (?), Sriath and Gorkh-and 36 companies, which were on the orbat of the army at Kathmandu. It is at variance with other records which show: The strength of the force that took part in invasion of Kumaon-Garhwal in 1790-91 was companies.30 The British intelligence estimated the Gorkhas having 31 companies in 1805 with a strength of 8,040 which progressively increased to 10,000 in 1815 and 12,000 in 1819. They also accepted a mobilisational capability of Nepal at 57,000. This, obviously was the result of the Pajani system. Hamilton, more accurately, estimated the Gorkha strength in 1802 as 65 companies. The Gorkha sources themselves have been confusing and mixed up as no credible records seem to have been maintained. Assuming Hamilton's information near accurate, it becomes clear that in 1814 the Gorkhas were upward of 65 companies which increased during the war to almost 120 companies . The assessment of the strength of the strength of the Gorkhas for the Anglo- Gorkha War was estimated at 12,000 lightly armed men whose deployment was appreciated as : West of Jamuna – 4,000; between Jamuna and Kali 2,000; East of Kali-6,000. Each of the Gurkha battalion was 600 strong with flint-locked rifles and their firing standards were good; they had 300 artillery pieces of 3-4 pounders mostly carried menslung . While the tactical unit remained a company, the four battalions we mentioned were, in fact, ceremonial organizations, which were raised by General Amar Singh Thapa, the father of Bhim Sen Thapa, at Tansen Palpa and Kathmandu. These were experimental battalions, which Thapa raised to counter the growing British mance. He would later claim them to have achieved standards better than the British's . The overall command and control system of the Gorkhas was based on their own and traditional system of commanders, which was partly monarchial and partly open to aristocracies and commoners. A credible effort to modernize their army. A Chautaria comprising the blood brothers of the Prince Regent or the King represented the monarchy. A subba and Kazi, for example, were both a judge, a Police officer and revenue collector, besides being a military commander. A Bhandar found a part of the twelve to fifteen-men-council. The team could be assigned military powers, if required. While a company was normally commanded by a Subedar, it was not uncommon to find a Captain to command either one unit or a number of units placed in a fort. Both Captain and Subedar represented the military leaders from the commoners. A company had a norma strength of 160 with four Jamadars, one Major, equivalent to Havilder/Sergeant Major Adjutant, Kotiya (Quarter-Master) and the ranks and file. It also had a small band with local musical instruments. The artesens like blacksmith were also included. A company could then look like what is shown below.
Notes The Indian Currency and Nepalese currency were at variance even Then 400 Indian Rupees were equivalent to 700 Nepalese Rupees. A Subedar was allotted 15 fields with yield of 100 muris (20 mounds). A Jemadar was allotted 7 fields. A company had 3-4 Platoons, which could fight independently. The family tree was : Company Headquarters Fighting Platoons (3) Band Platoon (1) Except the four battalions which were organized and dressed on the European lines, the other troops were dressed more informally than what are more authentically shown in the India Revealed: The Arts and Adventures of James and William Fraser 1801-35. They carried a flag of yellow cloth with a Hanuman in black, embroidered on it. 31 Bhim Sen Thapa was a far seeing man who saw the threat, to the areas of occupation and Nepal developing from the British. He visualized a deliberate militarization of Nepal and the occupied territories as the only solution to effectively contain their influence. The financial constraints, no doubt, could not improve or match their capability with the British; and they, therefore, remained what Hearsey wrote to Moira in 1813: "Their musketeers are infamous and their gun powder the same … flints are bad; they have little or no clothing and are very ill paid." This is further substantiated by Moira's report of June 1815 after the first Campaign .. "The Gorkha force was most part armed, clothed and disciplined in the imitation of our Sepoys". This was obviously tutored and manipulated and highly incorrect. However, his praise of the Gorkhas was true. The soldiers were known to be courageous, active, robust, obedient and patient under great privations as well as intelligent and quick of apprehensions. IN an earlier report he assessed the Gorkhas differently, as he wrote : "Although weak in military skill, their men are towers of strength. Their officers spirited."32 The great Achilles heel of the Gorkhas was their logistics and aritillery. we have devoted adequate to them else where. The main characteristics of the Gorkha organizations lay in their being lightly armed, unencumbered by heavey weapons or equipment. A portion of their strength carried flintlocked muskets which provided lesser and often inaccurate fire. But their riflemen were known to be veryfine marksmen, who influenced the battle at critical moments by bringing down the key British appointments including their assaulting Generals. Their artillery was as great a hindrance as their logistics. Equipped with small calibred guns from 1.5 inch to 4 inchs, they could at best be used as antipersonal weapos.Their ability to batter a fort or emplacement was minimal. And it was this deficiency inter-alia that caused failures at Langurgarhi and Kot Kangra. What remarkable actually were the Gorkha ability to sense the direction of attack, produce integrated fire at the attacker with deliberate and coordinated fire control.It is this fire control and the critical lethality of their weapons (muskets,bow and arrows, use of missiles, panjis of browned bamboos and use of ground ), which made them formidable defenders. Combined with these were the sudden spoiling attacks with khukris, which bloodied the British and often routed their assaulting columns. To Gorkhas, women were both wives and mothers as also fighters. some of them moved about dressed as men. The local women also joined them in fighting. besides nursing the wounded and the dying, they built walls, collected stones to be thrown as missiles. perhaps the first example of women joining the men in fighting a modern enemy is found in this war. speaking of the women's role at the battle of Kalunga,Kennedy, vansitart and fraser wrote of the Gokha women's valour; "During the assaults on the fort women were seen hurling stones and undauntly exposing themselves; and several of their dead bodies and 4 wounded were subsequently found amidst ruins of the fort". Tactics are influenced primarily by the terrain one operates and fights in, the type of the enemy, and his techniques of fighting. The Gorkhas developed both defensive and offensive tactics. IN defence they followed principally the system of covering the rotes of movement of an enemy. They built forts; stockades provided depth to forts by throwing out a part of their strength in early warning role. The defenses they occupied showed tactical brilliance. Their forts dominated all approaches and had layered perimeters of defenses. To protect themselves they created foxholes into which they moved when the main fort was heavily shelled. Their strong bunkers looked like dog-kennels to the British but they saved them form effects of shell. The Mongoloid looks of the Gorkhas scared the softer British officers and tightly uniformed sepoys. Their use of Panjis was as skilful as their use of internal moats. In attack they divided themselves in columns often mutually unsupported. They fought close quarter battles where skirmish was the rule rather than exception. Their best examples of attack against the British were at Jaithak (Major Richard's Ludlow's Force) and at Parsa and Samanpur. The above tow examples are reproduced partly, in the illustrations. The Gorkha had developed a sixth sense for fighting both the defensive and offensive operations. With an uncanny eye for ground they compensated their deficiency in modern arms specially artillery with bravery combined with improvisation. Their natural hardihood enabled them to suffer privations uncomplainingly, turning the same as an enormous instrument of advantage to their meager logistics. In recent times only the Vietnamese of Ho Chi Minh compared with them in hardihood, improvisation and determination. And they proved, they were the best in the world. Directory: docs docs -> Application for acem docs -> Observational Assessment of Teaching Practices Teaching Assessment Initiative Proposal Submitted to The Teachers for a New Era project docs -> Traditional British values docs -> From Warfighters to Crimefighters: The Origins of Domestic Police Militarization docs -> Borzoi Club of America Register of Merit Program I. What is a Register Of Merit docs -> Protecting the rights of the child in the context of migration docs -> United Nations E/C. 12/Esp/5 docs -> 9th May 1950 the schuman declaration docs -> Getting To Outcomes® in Services for Homeless Veterans 10 Steps for Achieving Accountability Download 0.54 Mb. Share with your friends:
|