Ramana, 95:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Islamic campaigns started in the late 600's, and the first significant inroads were by Muhammad, (son-in-law of Hajjaj) in 713-714 against Dahir in Sind. The Palas had not become a significant imperial power at this stage. The breach made in Multan by Muhammad was maintained in Multan and Mansura through the 800's and the 900's leading to the more famous campaigns of Mahmud. But if you think of it the earlier parts of the Islamic campaign comes in the immediate aftermath of the Buddhist revival under Harsha, and the increasingly thriving Buddhist townships of learning centres like Odantapuri and Nalanda in exactly this period may not actually indicate waning Buddhist influence. The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.
Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the invasions of moslem marauders were encountered by Hindu princes, LARGELY of shaiva leaning, barring a few encounters with vaiShNava leaning, but almost NEVER with any of jaina-bauddha leaning. Count in this list saindhava shAhI-s who were straunch brAhmaNa-s, pramAra-s, chAlukya-s, chauhAna-s, and princes of mewar etc -- all of those standard kShatriya-s with their mind at the right place. This is central and western India. In East India, it was the sena-s (and NOT pAla-s) who faced the brunt of first jehAd in shirq and remember that the first few sena-s were straunch shaivite too, although like any other Hindu prince, the were equally generous in grants to bauddha vihAra-s and jaina-s - but that should not be mistaken with any softened kShatriya sense. It was the prominent sena king, the lakShamaNa sena, a first generation vaiShNava who was ruling when Islam entered east. At this time, buddhism and jainism were already becoming "niche" religions followed by particular communities, and the traditional Astika mata-s had become much popular in general, and in particular the eastern vaiShNavism of early gauDIya vareity was gaining popularity.
coming to arthashAstra. It was certainly the manual which all these Hindu kingdoms were following, no dount. Just read the apabhramsha record on the education of princes by a certain brAhmaNa of multAna forcibly converted to Islam during those days and named as abdurrehmAna. He mentions artha- and rAjanIti being the core of education of Hindu princes besides the lessons of bravery. So we should say that the contemporary princes were very good kShatriya both in spirit and education.
So, the failure does not lie there at all. The failure lies elsewhere - in inability of Hindu intellectuals in being able to grasp this creed called Islam. There is no worthwhile account telling anything about evaluation and strategic understanding of the idea behing Islam by any contemporary brAhmaNa, jaina or bauddha scholars - despite losses after losses being suffered. lAmA tArAnAtha did mention it in retrospect, but that is later. Best anyone came up with was in the 11th century insertion about Islam into bhaviShya purANa after the pramAra retailation against ghaznavI. Nothing more until after the fall of Delhi in 13th c. (Or if someone did, then we have lost it, or is consumed away in the great fires made of the libraries by the ghAzI).
This failure to understand Islam, and failure to forge an unwavering united Hindu Front is the prime reason for the fall. Just imagine, when Moslem was knocking at the door, sena-s were spending their energies in territorial quarrels with their equally brilliant Hindu neighbours, resulting in total waste of Hindu resources! Then there is something called fate! Read Todd's Annals of Rajasthan, where he records several instances where fate was simply against the Hindus, including in the second battle of Tarrain.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Islamic campaigns started in the late 600's, and the first significant inroads were by Muhammad, (son-in-law of Hajjaj) in 713-714 against Dahir in Sind. The Palas had not become a significant imperial power at this stage. The breach made in Multan by Muhammad was maintained in Multan and Mansura through the 800's and the 900's leading to the more famous campaigns of Mahmud. But if you think of it the earlier parts of the Islamic campaign comes in the immediate aftermath of the Buddhist revival under Harsha, and the increasingly thriving Buddhist townships of learning centres like Odantapuri and Nalanda in exactly this period may not actually indicate waning Buddhist influence. The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.
Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of the invasions of moslem marauders were encountered by Hindu princes, LARGELY of shaiva leaning, barring a few encounters with vaiShNava leaning, but almost NEVER with any of jaina-bauddha leaning. Count in this list saindhava shAhI-s who were straunch brAhmaNa-s, pramAra-s, chAlukya-s, chauhAna-s, and princes of mewar etc -- all of those standard kShatriya-s with their mind at the right place. This is central and western India. In East India, it was the sena-s (and NOT pAla-s) who faced the brunt of first jehAd in shirq and remember that the first few sena-s were straunch shaivite too, although like any other Hindu prince, the were equally generous in grants to bauddha vihAra-s and jaina-s - but that should not be mistaken with any softened kShatriya sense. It was the prominent sena king, the lakShamaNa sena, a first generation vaiShNava who was ruling when Islam entered east. At this time, buddhism and jainism were already becoming "niche" religions followed by particular communities, and the traditional Astika mata-s had become much popular in general, and in particular the eastern vaiShNavism of early gauDIya vareity was gaining popularity.
coming to arthashAstra. It was certainly the manual which all these Hindu kingdoms were following, no dount. Just read the apabhramsha record on the education of princes by a certain brAhmaNa of multAna forcibly converted to Islam during those days and named as abdurrehmAna. He mentions artha- and rAjanIti being the core of education of Hindu princes besides the lessons of bravery. So we should say that the contemporary princes were very good kShatriya both in spirit and education.
So, the failure does not lie there at all. The failure lies elsewhere - in inability of Hindu intellectuals in being able to grasp this creed called Islam. There is no worthwhile account telling anything about evaluation and strategic understanding of the idea behing Islam by any contemporary brAhmaNa, jaina or bauddha scholars - despite losses after losses being suffered. lAmA tArAnAtha did mention it in retrospect, but that is later. Best anyone came up with was in the 11th century insertion about Islam into bhaviShya purANa after the pramAra retailation against ghaznavI. Nothing more until after the fall of Delhi in 13th c. (Or if someone did, then we have lost it, or is consumed away in the great fires made of the libraries by the ghAzI).
This failure to understand Islam, and failure to forge an unwavering united Hindu Front is the prime reason for the fall. Just imagine, when Moslem was knocking at the door, sena-s were spending their energies in territorial quarrels with their equally brilliant Hindu neighbours, resulting in total waste of Hindu resources! Then there is something called fate! Read Todd's Annals of Rajasthan, where he records several instances where fate was simply against the Hindus, including in the second battle of Tarrain.