12-23-2006, 12:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Dec 22 2006, 01:34 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Dec 22 2006, 01:34 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What were the circumustances that led to the establishment of the Muslim kingdoms in Deccan? Was it just the destruction of the Deogiri and Kakatiya power by Malik Kafur?
What happened to the kingdom setup in South India? How did it disappear?
[right][snapback]62323[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlike in other instances where one party would have economic superiority over another, in this case the conflict between the Hindu kingdoms of South India vs Sultanate, it was purely a military conquest. The Hindu kingdoms lost the battles or other engagements and hence their political power. In terms of resources (economic and manpower) they had plenty.
Why they lost is a difficult question to answer. There are many theories cited for the same. I dont know what fully explains the situation but from the top of my mind can cite a few theories
1. Ideological zeal of Islam: While this may seem subjectively okay, the problem is how you can measure something like ideological zeal
2. Already deteriorated state of the political power of the kingdoms: Here I would like to point out how feudalism had caused disintegration of the political power by 12th-13th c AD. In 9th-11th century you had strong powerful comparatively centralised states like Rashtrakuta, Western Chalukya and Chola. However by end of 12th century, feudatories of these such as Yadavas, Kakatiyas, Hoysalas, Pandyas etc had asserted their independance. They in turn were in a shaky state bcos their power was based on their feudatories. So there was a divisiveness and the political supremacy of these kingdoms was nothing compared to those of their parents viz. Western Chalukya and Cholas. In India we always have these cycles of political integration and disintegration. We had Mauryas coming up, then the states disintegrated, then Satavahanas came, after them the same thing, Guptas, Harsha, Pratihara, Chalukya, Chola etc. You always have a period of disintegration following one of consolidation. Again in the 18th century it was a period of disintegration with the decline of Mughal power. We also have the habit of getting caught at the wrong times of our history. So we had the Turco-Afghan Ghurids mounting their offensive and then the Khiljis penetrating into South India at a time when the political landscape of these areas was divided. Why did the consolidation break down in 12th-13th century AD is again a difficult question to answer
3. Social set up theories: Caste restrictions at their peak. Division in the society between upper castes and lower castes. I dont know how strong this theory is. In fact I feel to the contrary that in South India especially there was a religious revival during this period and the one preceeding it led by spiritual giants like Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhva, Basava, the Alwars, the Veerashaivas etc.
4. Notions of chivalry and Superstitions of the ruling class: There is an interesting paper of Brajadul Chattopadhaya on this. Basically what it says is that the Hindu kingdoms with their notions of chivalry were in a constant mode of one-upmanship in trying to challenge each other and fight. The enemity between Prithviraja and Jayachandra Gahadavala and their other conflicts with the Gujarata Chalukya, Chandellas etc. at the onset of the Ghurid invasion is one example. Also the Western Chalukyas and the Cholas were involved in a constant state of warfare with each other, so also their successors like Hoysalas, Yadavas, Kakatiyas with each other, which gradually weakened them all. Again this view may have some strength but could overlook military conflicts for mainly economic reasons as some historians have the view of Hoysala incursions into Tamil territory.
5. Another important point is the military superioirty and tactics of the Islamic invaders. Firstly they relied very heavily on a fast mobile cavalry and on mounted archery, to which our mainly infantry based armies had no answer for. Their battle strategies suited for their kind of army, which also helped them. Hence they were able to harass numerically superior troops and dash off before they incur any heavy damages, regroup and attack again. Interestingly long after this period in 1761 in the 3rd battle of Panipat, you find similar elements in the struggle between Afghans and Marathas mainly because Bhau foolishly in an effort to modernise his army relied heavily on infantry which was harassed by the Afghan mounted archers and light artillery on camelback.
I think looking overall the last point about military superiority seems most relevant because from the Hindu kingdom's point of view, the loss was first and foremost a military loss. The South Indians kingdoms could not defeat them on the battlefied and hence lost their political power. So there must be some substance to this military superioirty theory. Having said that the points no 1-4 (mainly point nos 2 and 4 rather than the others) may be useful in trying to understand why the Hindu kingdoms on facing this kind of threat were not able to find a solution to counter it. Definitely it is because of their own weaknesses which they were not able to overcome due to the above stated reasons.
What happened to the kingdom setup in South India? How did it disappear?
[right][snapback]62323[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlike in other instances where one party would have economic superiority over another, in this case the conflict between the Hindu kingdoms of South India vs Sultanate, it was purely a military conquest. The Hindu kingdoms lost the battles or other engagements and hence their political power. In terms of resources (economic and manpower) they had plenty.
Why they lost is a difficult question to answer. There are many theories cited for the same. I dont know what fully explains the situation but from the top of my mind can cite a few theories
1. Ideological zeal of Islam: While this may seem subjectively okay, the problem is how you can measure something like ideological zeal
2. Already deteriorated state of the political power of the kingdoms: Here I would like to point out how feudalism had caused disintegration of the political power by 12th-13th c AD. In 9th-11th century you had strong powerful comparatively centralised states like Rashtrakuta, Western Chalukya and Chola. However by end of 12th century, feudatories of these such as Yadavas, Kakatiyas, Hoysalas, Pandyas etc had asserted their independance. They in turn were in a shaky state bcos their power was based on their feudatories. So there was a divisiveness and the political supremacy of these kingdoms was nothing compared to those of their parents viz. Western Chalukya and Cholas. In India we always have these cycles of political integration and disintegration. We had Mauryas coming up, then the states disintegrated, then Satavahanas came, after them the same thing, Guptas, Harsha, Pratihara, Chalukya, Chola etc. You always have a period of disintegration following one of consolidation. Again in the 18th century it was a period of disintegration with the decline of Mughal power. We also have the habit of getting caught at the wrong times of our history. So we had the Turco-Afghan Ghurids mounting their offensive and then the Khiljis penetrating into South India at a time when the political landscape of these areas was divided. Why did the consolidation break down in 12th-13th century AD is again a difficult question to answer
3. Social set up theories: Caste restrictions at their peak. Division in the society between upper castes and lower castes. I dont know how strong this theory is. In fact I feel to the contrary that in South India especially there was a religious revival during this period and the one preceeding it led by spiritual giants like Shankaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhva, Basava, the Alwars, the Veerashaivas etc.
4. Notions of chivalry and Superstitions of the ruling class: There is an interesting paper of Brajadul Chattopadhaya on this. Basically what it says is that the Hindu kingdoms with their notions of chivalry were in a constant mode of one-upmanship in trying to challenge each other and fight. The enemity between Prithviraja and Jayachandra Gahadavala and their other conflicts with the Gujarata Chalukya, Chandellas etc. at the onset of the Ghurid invasion is one example. Also the Western Chalukyas and the Cholas were involved in a constant state of warfare with each other, so also their successors like Hoysalas, Yadavas, Kakatiyas with each other, which gradually weakened them all. Again this view may have some strength but could overlook military conflicts for mainly economic reasons as some historians have the view of Hoysala incursions into Tamil territory.
5. Another important point is the military superioirty and tactics of the Islamic invaders. Firstly they relied very heavily on a fast mobile cavalry and on mounted archery, to which our mainly infantry based armies had no answer for. Their battle strategies suited for their kind of army, which also helped them. Hence they were able to harass numerically superior troops and dash off before they incur any heavy damages, regroup and attack again. Interestingly long after this period in 1761 in the 3rd battle of Panipat, you find similar elements in the struggle between Afghans and Marathas mainly because Bhau foolishly in an effort to modernise his army relied heavily on infantry which was harassed by the Afghan mounted archers and light artillery on camelback.
I think looking overall the last point about military superiority seems most relevant because from the Hindu kingdom's point of view, the loss was first and foremost a military loss. The South Indians kingdoms could not defeat them on the battlefied and hence lost their political power. So there must be some substance to this military superioirty theory. Having said that the points no 1-4 (mainly point nos 2 and 4 rather than the others) may be useful in trying to understand why the Hindu kingdoms on facing this kind of threat were not able to find a solution to counter it. Definitely it is because of their own weaknesses which they were not able to overcome due to the above stated reasons.