01-09-2004, 07:56 AM
Attn S.bajwa
--------
The main hindu weakness has been lack of ruthlessness when the opportunity
presented itself
1947 for example was a missed opportunity
1971 another example
I call this the Prithviraj Chauhan Syndrome
By 712 when Sindh fell, muslim armies were already in France
As late as 1683, Muslim armies were in Russia, Poland and Austria
When the tide of battle turned the xtians either killed / forcibly converted / expelled the muslims. The tide turned in India at the same time, but hindus lacked
long term thinking
Andre Wink writes that Indians preferred to import horses and did not know how to raise horses
Most horses died and India had to constantly import horses as late as 1560
The muslim sultans blocked the import of horses and this weakened the hindu armies so much that a cavalry based muslim army during the period of the sultanate could defeat an infantry based hindu army 10X larger
Further the turks had a new invention, the mounted archer
Hindu archers were foot soldiers and lacked the mobility
Next, hindu armies were often levies, namely militias raised by local zamindar
These part time armies lacked discipline
Hindus did not keep a permanent standing army till Vijayanagar
A permanent standing army costs money and demands total war mobilisation
Vijayanagar was a totally militarised kingdom
Muslim armies were very large. Ghori had 2 lakhs, The Khiljis had 10 lakhs
By comparison, the british army was 1 lakh and the Indian army today is 10 lakhs
Vijayanagar had a 10 lakh army and kept islam out of south India for 350 years
As far as vegetarianism goes, let me point you to Namdhari Sikhs and Amritdhari Sikhs. In 1880, in 51% muslim Ferozepur, Namdharis went on a major anti-muslim riot over cow slaughter
Next we come to the issue of 'forward policy'
When muslims won a battle, they killed the hindu king and annexed his kingdom
along with a policy of forced conversion
Even as late as the marathas, hindus did not fully change
By 1755, all of India was under maratha rule, but they only did partial annexation
of bengal, oudh and hyderabad and delhi
They let the muslims stay on in exchange for tribute and ceding of some land
This led to 3 dangerous consequences
The failure to annex bengal in 1744 gave an opening to the british in 1757 in bengal
The Nizam was repeatedly defeated by the marathas but each time they annexed a slice and more tribute, finally in 1795 the Nizam went under british protection
to save his ass from the marathas and it was solved only in 1948 by Sardar Patel
The Delhi Mughal emperor was a maratha puppet from 1750-1761 and 1772-1803
and to conquer delhi, the british had to defeat the marathas
at which time the mughal emperor became a british puppet
Overall to the common muslim it appeared that rule went from muslims to british, not realising that it was really a transfer of power from marathas to british
This led to muslim arrogance and riots and pakistan
Visit Indiaclub.com and buy books from R.C.Majumdar
History shows that muslims lost about 90% of their battles but made full use of their 10% victories
--------
The main hindu weakness has been lack of ruthlessness when the opportunity
presented itself
1947 for example was a missed opportunity
1971 another example
I call this the Prithviraj Chauhan Syndrome
By 712 when Sindh fell, muslim armies were already in France
As late as 1683, Muslim armies were in Russia, Poland and Austria
When the tide of battle turned the xtians either killed / forcibly converted / expelled the muslims. The tide turned in India at the same time, but hindus lacked
long term thinking
Andre Wink writes that Indians preferred to import horses and did not know how to raise horses
Most horses died and India had to constantly import horses as late as 1560
The muslim sultans blocked the import of horses and this weakened the hindu armies so much that a cavalry based muslim army during the period of the sultanate could defeat an infantry based hindu army 10X larger
Further the turks had a new invention, the mounted archer
Hindu archers were foot soldiers and lacked the mobility
Next, hindu armies were often levies, namely militias raised by local zamindar
These part time armies lacked discipline
Hindus did not keep a permanent standing army till Vijayanagar
A permanent standing army costs money and demands total war mobilisation
Vijayanagar was a totally militarised kingdom
Muslim armies were very large. Ghori had 2 lakhs, The Khiljis had 10 lakhs
By comparison, the british army was 1 lakh and the Indian army today is 10 lakhs
Vijayanagar had a 10 lakh army and kept islam out of south India for 350 years
As far as vegetarianism goes, let me point you to Namdhari Sikhs and Amritdhari Sikhs. In 1880, in 51% muslim Ferozepur, Namdharis went on a major anti-muslim riot over cow slaughter
Next we come to the issue of 'forward policy'
When muslims won a battle, they killed the hindu king and annexed his kingdom
along with a policy of forced conversion
Even as late as the marathas, hindus did not fully change
By 1755, all of India was under maratha rule, but they only did partial annexation
of bengal, oudh and hyderabad and delhi
They let the muslims stay on in exchange for tribute and ceding of some land
This led to 3 dangerous consequences
The failure to annex bengal in 1744 gave an opening to the british in 1757 in bengal
The Nizam was repeatedly defeated by the marathas but each time they annexed a slice and more tribute, finally in 1795 the Nizam went under british protection
to save his ass from the marathas and it was solved only in 1948 by Sardar Patel
The Delhi Mughal emperor was a maratha puppet from 1750-1761 and 1772-1803
and to conquer delhi, the british had to defeat the marathas
at which time the mughal emperor became a british puppet
Overall to the common muslim it appeared that rule went from muslims to british, not realising that it was really a transfer of power from marathas to british
This led to muslim arrogance and riots and pakistan
Visit Indiaclub.com and buy books from R.C.Majumdar
History shows that muslims lost about 90% of their battles but made full use of their 10% victories