Why There Is No Bengal Regiment in the Indian Army?

 

Why There Is No Bengal Regiment in the Indian Army: History, Debate, and the Question of Representation

 

✒️ Pratayay Sur

For decades, many people in Bengal have wondered why there is still no dedicated “Bengal Regiment” in the Indian Army, even though several other regions and communities have their own historic regiments. The question touches on history, colonial military policies, and modern debates about identity, representation, and national service.

Understanding this issue requires looking at the structure of the Indian Army, the legacy of colonial recruitment policies, and the role Bengal once played in India’s military history.The Structure of the Indian Army’s Infantry Regiments The Indian Army is one of the largest military forces in the world, with a complex regimental system developed over more than a century. Today, the Army has 27 infantry regiments, comprising over 400 battalions across different categories such as Regular Army units, Territorial Army units, and counter-insurgency formations.

Some of the most prominent regiments include:

• Gorkha Rifles – around 40 battalions

• Punjab Regiment – around 29 battalions

• Madras Regiment – around 21 battalions

• Maratha Light Infantry – around 22 battalions

• Rajputana Rifles – around 20 battalions

• Sikh Regiment – around 20 battalions

• Assam Regiment – about 10 battalions

There are also specialized formations such as:

• Mechanised Infantry Regiment

• Brigade of the Guards

• Rashtriya Rifles

The Territorial Army also maintains regional units, including formations based in cities such as Kolkata. Despite this extensive structure, there is no regiment specifically named after Bengal.

The Colonial Legacy: The “Martial Races” Theory To understand why, one must look back to the period of British rule. After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, many units of the Bengal Native Infantry were involved in the uprising against the British East India Company. Following the rebellion, British authorities drastically changed their recruitment policies.

They introduced the controversial “martial races” theory, which categorized certain communities as more suitable for military service. According to this policy, recruitment was focused on groups such as:

• Gurkhas

• Sikhs

• Pathans

• Rajputs

As a result, recruitment from Bengal declined significantly.The Short-Lived Bengali Regiment There was one brief attempt to create a regiment composed mainly of Bengalis.Between 1917 and 1920, the British raised the 49th Bengalee Regiment during the later stages of World War I. However, the regiment was eventually disbanded. It remains the only historical example of a specifically Bengali infantry unit.After Independence: A Different Military Philosophy After India gained independence in 1947, the military leadership retained much of the regimental structure inherited from the British era. However, recruitment became far more inclusive.

Today, soldiers from West Bengal serve across many regiments of the Indian Army rather than in a single region-specific unit.This reflects the modern doctrine of national integration within the armed forces, where personnel from different regions often serve together in the same units.The Legacy of Netaji and the Idea of National Service

Discussions about Bengali representation in the military often evoke the legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose.Through the Indian National Army, Bose envisioned a truly national force that transcended regional divisions. His ideas about discipline, sacrifice, and collective national duty continue to influence public debates about defense and civic responsibility. Some commentators have suggested that a broader system of national service similar to those adopted in countries such as Israel could strengthen civic participation and national integration.Representation, Identity, and Ongoing Debate

The absence of a Bengal-named regiment occasionally becomes a topic of political and cultural debate. Some argue that a symbolic formation could reflect Bengal’s historical contributions to India’s freedom movement and intellectual life. Others believe the current all-India recruitment model better represents the idea of a unified national army.Both perspectives reflect broader discussions about how regional identity and national identity coexist within India’s democratic framework.

Looking Forward

The Indian Army continues to evolve as a modern force capable of meeting complex security challenges. At the same time, historical questions about recruitment patterns and representation remain part of public discourse.

Whether through increased participation in existing regiments, greater awareness of military service among youth, or discussions about symbolic representation, the relationship between Bengal and India’s armed forces continues to be an important subject for reflection.

Why India Cannot Stop Brands Like Ralph Lauren From Copying Traditional Jhumkas

 Who Owns the Jhumka?

When Ralph Lauren took a classic Indian earring well known as Jhumka to the Paris runway, social media exploded. But the real question no one is asking is the legal one and the answer is deeply uncomfortable.

✒️ Sreeja Ghosh 

When a model sashayed down a Ralph Lauren runway in Paris wearing bell-shaped, tiered earrings that millions of Indian women recognise instantly as their own grandmother's jhumkas, or that are easily available from the street of Kolkata's Gariahat to Delhi's Janpath market, the internet did not pause to consider IP law. It did what the internet does best  it raged. Memes comparing the runway accessory with jhumkas sold on Delhi's Janpath market for fifty rupees spread faster than any press release. 'Cultural appropriation,' the captions screamed, 'they're selling our heritage back to us.'

The outrage was valid. The emotion was real. But beneath the viral fire lies a far more consequential and far less comfortable question: can India actually do anything about it legally? The answer, in most cases, is a firm and disheartening and understanding why it is necessary for us to look closely at the architecture of intellectual property law and why it was never built for people like us.

The Issue With Protecting Traditional Designs

Modern intellectual property laws are designed to protect individual creators and original inventions. Patents, copyrights and design registrations usually apply when something is new, innovative and created by a clearly recognisable person or company. Traditional cultural designs rarely meet these criteria.

Jewellery styles like Jhumka earrings have evolved over centuries through community craftsmanship. No single designer or brand can claim to have invented them. They are part of shared cultural heritage. As a result, they often fall into what lawyers describe as the “public domain.” This means anyone, anywhere in the world, can technically recreate or reinterpret the design without violating intellectual property laws. That legal reality makes it extremely difficult for countries like India to challenge international fashion brands.

“I am not fully aware of the details of the jhumka controversy, so I would not like to comment on that specific case,” said T.K. Jana, an intellectual property practitioner. “However, if a design is not formally registered, it often becomes ‘common to trade’. Many vintage designs were never registered because such practices were not common earlier. Even when a design is registered, protection under design law typically remains valid for only about fifteen years.”

 GI Tags: Protection With Limits

India does have one system designed to protect regional heritage products that is the Geographical Indication tag. GI tags designate products whose unique reputation and quality are fundamentally tied to a specific geographical origin. For example, Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Saree Kanchipuram Silk Saree.

These GI tags ensure that only producers from that particular region can legally market their goods under that name. Infact GI protection has a major limitation. It protects the name and origin, not necessarily the design itself.

For instance , a company outside India cannot label its product as “Banarasi Saree” unless it actually comes from Varanasi. But it can still create a saree with similar motifs or weaving patterns and sell it under a different name. The same principle applies to jewellery. Even if a jhumka style were associated with a region, a global brand could still reinterpret the design without violating GI laws.

Source – Artchives India

Legal experts often point out that traditional crafts fall into a grey area known as Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs). These include designs, patterns, music, dance forms and craft traditions that belong collectively to communities rather than individuals. Unlike modern inventions, these expressions have been passed down through generations. International discussions on protecting TCEs are ongoing, particularly at organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization. But global legal frameworks remain incomplete. Until stronger systems are adopted, many cultural designs remain unprotected to commercial reinterpretation.

Why Artisans Rarely Benefit

While international brands draw inspiration from traditional aesthetics, the original artisans often remain invisible in the global conversation. Across India, thousands of small jewellery workshops produce traditional designs in cities like Jaipur, Hyderabad and Kolkata’s Bowbazar district. Many artisans inherit their skills through generations of family craftsmanship.

Yet these craftsmen typically operate in the informal economy, with limited access to branding, international markets or intellectual property protections. As a result, when traditional designs appear on luxury runways or global retail platforms, the communities that developed them rarely see any financial benefit. This imbalance highlights a growing tension between global fashion inspiration and local economic justice.

The Ownerless Heritage 

A Larger Question for India

Fashion evolves through cultural exchange, and Indian fashion itself reflects diverse influences. But critics argue problems arise when global brands profit from cultural symbols without acknowledging their origins. The debate around Ralph Lauren and Jhumka earrings raises a key question: who owns cultural heritage, and who benefits from it?

The jhumka controversy is ultimately about more than one fashion show or one global brand. It raises a broader question for India as a country rich in cultural heritage.

How can traditional crafts be protected in a global creative economy where inspiration travels freely across borders? Until stronger legal and economic frameworks emerge, many of India’s most iconic cultural designs may continue to inspire the world without necessarily benefiting the communities that created them.