How Hindus Fought To Keep India Hindu Againt Islam

[Guest]

The biggest reasons for our major defeats were not bad strategy, caste system or lack of cavalry it was because we followed the ancient kshatriya code of not killing a prostrate enemy.

Well that's exactly what I mean when I say Hindus failed to learn, we failed to learn to be ruthless with these invaders, I also have to disagree with you on strategy and cavalry, those two were also major reasons for our defeats, for example in the 3rd battle of Panipat what kind of a strategy was it to bring women and thousands of civilians along to a battleground, also the empire of Vijayanagara realised that the Muslims had better horses, that is why they used the Portuguese to import good quality horses. We forgot to learn our lessons from what Sri Krishna did in Mahabharata and acted like war was some kind of a tournament.

Nextly take the case of Hindu routs, everytime the Hindus were winning all the Muslims had to do was to somehow kill the king and the entire army fled like rabble, this was repeated so many times. Here is a good analysis for Hindu defeats:

Bharatvarsh,
This is true for ANY war and not applicable to rajputs/Indians only. During battle of Samugarh when Dara had distinct advantage, largely because of roop singh rathore and other rajputs, Khalilullah Khan asked him to get down from the elephant and mount a horse. This was followed by Khalilullah's men spreading a rumour that Dara has been knocked out which his army started believing because they could not see him in the howdah. There courage broke down and Dara's army started running away.

REAL CAUSES OF HINDU DEFEATS


Finally, Dr. Misra lays his probing finger on the real factors which contributed to Hindu defeats during this period. The very first factor, according to him, was the lack of a forward policy vis-a-vis the Muslim invaders. In his own words, “What the Rajputs really lacked was a spirit of aggression so conspicuous among the Muslims, and a will to force the war in the enemy’s dominions and thus destroy the base of his power.”5

This is not entirely true. Bappa Rawal made his attacks deep into caliphate and the sind muslims actually were tributaries to rajputs. Note there is a big misconception that delhi sultanate ruled the roost from Ghori's wins till Babur. This is largely false. Major parts of India were under Hindu Kings. Professor Herman Kulke in his book "A History of India, ISBN: 0415154820, Publisher: Routledge; 3rd edition (March 1998)" records:

"Ala-ud-din was also quite realistic when he mentioned that his order would be obeyed only upto a distance of about 100 miles from Delhi; beyond that limit military intervention was required if he wanted to impose his will on the people."

So during this time one has to think of Delhi as just another kingdom like Amber or Mewar.

Secondly, a forward policy could not be pursued in the absence of a “strong central government for even the whole of northern India which could think and act for the whole country”. As a result, “The Rajput rulers found it difficult to look beyond the territorial limits of their own kingdoms and their regional interests pushed the national issues into the background.”6 Compared to a strong central authority, the various confederacies organised by the Rajputs proved to be patch-works which came apart either under the impact of military defeat, or as soon as the immediate purpose of stopping the enemy had been served.

Parts of this quote regarding central leadership are true and I did mention them in my first reply but one has to understand the dynamics of medieval India. Firstly for rajputs the most important in his mind was his patrynomic inheritance. To regain that he did not need any encouragement. Secondly if an oppurtinity did arise to form a confederacy as was done by Sanga and prithviraj rajputs did join these. Lack of central leadership was definetely an issue but why it did not happen is pure chance.

Thirdly, the military organisation of the Rajputs was inferior as compared to that of the Muslims. The Rajputs depended mainly on feudal levies assembled on the spur of the moment. “These feudal levies with no unity of training and organisation, coming together at the last moment, fighting under the leadership of and for their individual leaders, could not be expected to beat back an enemy united in purpose and organisation and acting as on coordinate unit.” A medieval Muslim historian quoted by Dr. Misra said so in so many words: “A commander with a heterogeneous army consisting of soldiers - a hundred from here and a hundred from there - cannot achieve anything. An army with so varied and so many component elements has never been able to achieve anything great.”7


Fourthly, “The cavalry and mounted archers of the invading armies gave them a decisive superiority over the home forces. The Indian rulers too maintained cavalry units. But the Arabic and Turkoman horses were much better adapted to warfare… The second strong point of the Turkish military machine was its mounted archery. Their deadly arrows easily covered a range of eighty to hundred paces… Reference to archery among the Indian armies after the age of the epics is conspicuous by its absence.”8

This is monday morning quarterbacking because most of the details about rajputs wars are not readliy available so the worst is thought. As I mentioned earlier rajput CAVALRY defeated the turk cavalry at Taraori under Prithviraj Chauhan. Secondly archers were used in every rajput war. Hammir's archers and the medieveal cannons were largely responsible for Allauddin's first defeat at Ranathambore. And Marwari is one of THE BEST horse for cavalry warfare. There is just no question about it. So Mishra is just misinformed. Historians just do not realise why they are still Hindu because they like everyone else falsely believe that India was occupied for 1000 years by muslims. This we know is utter falsehood.

<img src='http://www.ridingholidays.com/imagenew/marwari1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Marwari Horse


<img src='http://www.marwarihorse.com/images/marwari_horse_6.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Panchkalyan Marwari. Horse of Jeytung Bhati, one of the heroes of the famous Jaisalmer love story http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajput_Chivalry

Lastly, “the strategy and tactics employed by the invaders on the battlefield proved decisive in their favour. Indians failed to keep pace with the developments of military strategy taking place in Central Asia before the advent of Islam. The Arabs and Turks perfected them… Besides, the traditional Rajput chivalry looked upon the battle as a ritual or a tournament for displaying their fighting skill and swordsmanship under well-recognised rules of sport. Did not Manu, the ancient law-giver proclaim – ‘A battle was ideally a gigantic tournament with many rules: a warrior fighting from a chariot might not strike one on foot; an enemy in flight, wounded or asking a quarter, might not be slain; the lives of enemy soldiers who had lost their weapons were to be respected; poisoned weapons were not to be used; homage and not annexation was the rightful fruit of victory.’ The Arabs and the Turks, on the other hand, knew no rules and waged a grim and ruthless struggle to destroy their enemies. Feints and sudden attacks, manoeuvering under the cover of darkness and pretending defeat and flights, keeping a large reserve to be used only at critical moments - all these took the Indians by surprise and crippled their fighting capacity. The Indians never tried to take advantage of their enemy’s weakness and perhaps considered it unchivalrous to do so. Such magnanimity on the part of Indian kings… was a sure invitation to disaster against a ruthless foe who recognised no moral or ideological scruples in the pursuit of victory.”9

This is arguing in favor of treachery and using underhand means to win the war as muslims did pretty much in every war. If you read Tamur Lane's wars same theme runs through them. The Bayazid lost because of traitors. This change in beahvior is easier said then done. People who honor there word more then there life cannot easily fall to this line of thinking. But Mishra has a point here.

SAPPERS AND MINERS OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM


Muslims had two more advantages in addition to their aggressiveness and superiority in the art of warfare. “During this long period of Indian resistance”, observes Dr. Misra, “the infiltration of Arabs, and later on the Turks, continued almost unabated into India, both through armed invasions as well as through peaceful migration from Central Asia. The Hindus, true to their catholicity of religious outlook and rich tradition of tolerance, never obstructed the peaceful immigrants and even zealously granted them security and full religious freedom… The greatest Chishti saint of India, Shaikh Muinuddin Chishti, came to Ajmer just before the battles of Tarain and was able to attract a number of devoted followers… It is all the more remarkable that this Hindu tolerance towards the Muslim merchants and mystics should have continued even after the invasions of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni… As Professor Habib points out, ‘the far-flung campaigns of Sultan Mahmud would have been impossible without an accurate knowledge of trade routes and local resources, which was probably obtained from Muslim merchants.’ The same can be said to hold good about the invasions of Muhammad Ghori or Qutbuddin Aibak.”10 The sufis were working not only as the spies of Islamic imperialism but also as deceivers of gullible Hindu masses.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/hhrmi/ch5.htm

[right][snapback]57145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Had Hindus not been magnanimous the world probably would have lost the ancient religion of zoroaster. I would say this is not a weakness. Because once the war starts there are other more important factors at play.

-Digvijay