01-08-2004, 12:47 PM
To counter some common legends:
1) Indians lacked unity when faced with the Moslems
Countercase: Actually Hindus were no less united than the Moslems. The basic feature of Islam (vide Huntington) is to bloody within and without. So Moslems are busy killing each other as well as Kaffirs. It is true that Hindu Kings often showed lack of unity. But there were occassion when they showed tremendous national spirit of kind that never existed in Europe even during the height of the crusades. One such incident was the battle of Baharaich, when 17 Hindu chiefs and Kings from all over northern India put up a spirited fight against the Ghaznavids at Bahraich, UP. Salaar Masud al Mujahid, the son-in-law of Mahmud Ghaznavi, was slain in the battle and the Moslems completely massacred. However, to some extant the Hindu rulers following the artha shAstra dictum of shatru's shatru being a friend back fired badly.
2) Only brahmins and kshatriyas fought battles, while other watched.
Countercase: lalitAditya the great kArkoTaka monarch inducted many central Asian tribes into the army for the defence of the land against Moslems after enmasse converting them to the Hindu fold. The Rajput clans known as agnikula have descended from central Asian converts to the Hindu fold and were some of the greatest defenders of the Dharma against the Moslem violence. Bajirao I, Coastal Brahmin elevated two talented warriors Shinde and Holkar of Maharashtrian shepherd and goatherd communities to generalhood. Later they became royalty like Vasundhara. Shivaji himself hailed from a rather backward Maharatta tribe in the caste hierarchy. So it was not as though the lower castes could not participate in national defence and be upwardly mobile. Hemu, the brave Hindu general who tried to liberate North India from the Moslems was a vaishya.
3) The caste system resulted in a lack of unity.
Countercase: On an average, the Hindu backward classes used the opportunity of national defence to rise the ladder and sanskritize themselves rather than join the hands of the Moslems against the Brahmins.
4) Hindu armies were technologically weaker.
Countercase: Hindu armies were same as India's army vis-a-vis Pakistan 's. A provincial ruler mUlarAja chAlukya of Gujarat could smash the very well trained Moslem army of Shihab-ad-din Ghori. Hindu fireworks, bombs and catapults, especially those used by the Rajputs were clearly on par with what most had at that time. The Moslem authors frequently describe the spirited defence of Rajput forts with good fireworks. However, I concede that there were two major issue that hampered Hindus armies. A) With time the technology differential of provincial Hindu rulers declined due to Alla-ad-din Khalji's major Hindu disarmament program.
B) Hindus did not have a a good source for horses as Central Asia or Arabia. The lack of the Horse made the Hindus depend on Europeans for horses and they also weakened the mobility of Hindu forces.
5) Hindus were physically weaker.
This is a figment of the martial races theory that the TSPians have been spread at every opporttunity- short, thin black Hindus as against tall fair noble Islamic warriors. A thin and agile Maharatta warrior has on more than one occassion shown himself to slaughter oversized Khans without much ado.
So the question remains why did Hindus lose on several occassions?
The answer is complex and is a combination of many factors that we shall analyze later. In my opinion the lack of the horse was the beginning of most troubles. It also explains Subramanian's point of our tendency to fight defensive wars. Some how this trend has persisted to this date when the horse is long out of vogue. I fear it has deeply etched itself in the Hindu warring ethos.
1) Indians lacked unity when faced with the Moslems
Countercase: Actually Hindus were no less united than the Moslems. The basic feature of Islam (vide Huntington) is to bloody within and without. So Moslems are busy killing each other as well as Kaffirs. It is true that Hindu Kings often showed lack of unity. But there were occassion when they showed tremendous national spirit of kind that never existed in Europe even during the height of the crusades. One such incident was the battle of Baharaich, when 17 Hindu chiefs and Kings from all over northern India put up a spirited fight against the Ghaznavids at Bahraich, UP. Salaar Masud al Mujahid, the son-in-law of Mahmud Ghaznavi, was slain in the battle and the Moslems completely massacred. However, to some extant the Hindu rulers following the artha shAstra dictum of shatru's shatru being a friend back fired badly.
2) Only brahmins and kshatriyas fought battles, while other watched.
Countercase: lalitAditya the great kArkoTaka monarch inducted many central Asian tribes into the army for the defence of the land against Moslems after enmasse converting them to the Hindu fold. The Rajput clans known as agnikula have descended from central Asian converts to the Hindu fold and were some of the greatest defenders of the Dharma against the Moslem violence. Bajirao I, Coastal Brahmin elevated two talented warriors Shinde and Holkar of Maharashtrian shepherd and goatherd communities to generalhood. Later they became royalty like Vasundhara. Shivaji himself hailed from a rather backward Maharatta tribe in the caste hierarchy. So it was not as though the lower castes could not participate in national defence and be upwardly mobile. Hemu, the brave Hindu general who tried to liberate North India from the Moslems was a vaishya.
3) The caste system resulted in a lack of unity.
Countercase: On an average, the Hindu backward classes used the opportunity of national defence to rise the ladder and sanskritize themselves rather than join the hands of the Moslems against the Brahmins.
4) Hindu armies were technologically weaker.
Countercase: Hindu armies were same as India's army vis-a-vis Pakistan 's. A provincial ruler mUlarAja chAlukya of Gujarat could smash the very well trained Moslem army of Shihab-ad-din Ghori. Hindu fireworks, bombs and catapults, especially those used by the Rajputs were clearly on par with what most had at that time. The Moslem authors frequently describe the spirited defence of Rajput forts with good fireworks. However, I concede that there were two major issue that hampered Hindus armies. A) With time the technology differential of provincial Hindu rulers declined due to Alla-ad-din Khalji's major Hindu disarmament program.
B) Hindus did not have a a good source for horses as Central Asia or Arabia. The lack of the Horse made the Hindus depend on Europeans for horses and they also weakened the mobility of Hindu forces.
5) Hindus were physically weaker.
This is a figment of the martial races theory that the TSPians have been spread at every opporttunity- short, thin black Hindus as against tall fair noble Islamic warriors. A thin and agile Maharatta warrior has on more than one occassion shown himself to slaughter oversized Khans without much ado.
So the question remains why did Hindus lose on several occassions?
The answer is complex and is a combination of many factors that we shall analyze later. In my opinion the lack of the horse was the beginning of most troubles. It also explains Subramanian's point of our tendency to fight defensive wars. Some how this trend has persisted to this date when the horse is long out of vogue. I fear it has deeply etched itself in the Hindu warring ethos.