Were Indian soldiers in the First World War deliberately deployed in the most dangerous areas of the front line?

by scerpalman

The British Empire used over 800,000 Indian soldiers in combat roles in the First World War (as well as over 400,000 non-combat personnel). Were these soldiers deployed to the most dangerous areas of the front so as to ensure white, British soldiers (or other Allies) would take less losses?

CptBuck

Well, I can't speak to the western front, but quite a lot of Indian soldiers were deployed on the Mesopotamian front which by all accounts I've come across was expected to be a cakewalk. As it happened the fighting there in the first couple years of the war ended up being quite horrific but that was equally true of [battles with the Ottomans that involved mostly white commonwealth troops] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign) and those that involved a huge mix of troops from across the empire including the home nations.

So again, without being able to comment on whether such a policy existed on the western front I would find it suspicious given the volume of Indian troops that were sent to fight on fronts that were thought to be easy pickings (even if they ultimately were not.)