• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Pre-modern Warfare:India And Elsewhere
Bajwa, Now that I read your other post, I think I can see your point. I am talking about the know-how and war-strategies that India had, while you are talking about the reasons for downfall and failure. I can agree with you in the fact that lack of unity, and understanding of the concept of ONE nation had lead to the downfall of the bharat-varsha.

Of all weapons, the most powerful one is the mind of a strategist. (A thousand arrows can destroy a thousand people, while the careful planning of One single planner will destroy the enemy even while he is in the womb. - Arthashastra.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Manu is a smriti and India as a whole never followed Manu smriti.

Parts of North India where Manu Smriti was diligently followed were the same parts that were overrun by foreign invasions.
Mr. Sita Ram Goel, Mr. Lal all say in their books that "Garrisons at various places were entirely composed of Rajputs and Brahmins" and none else. In the first invasion when Hajjaj sent an expedition under Mohammad-bin-qasim to Sindh, the garrison of devalya(near karachi) had 500 Rajputs who resisted invasion for long time hoping that Raja Dahir would send reinforcements from his capital (close to Multan), which he never did. Then Mohammad Bin Qasim slowly advanced towards Raja Dahir's capital, Raja waited for an auspicious time and did nothing until he had to face Mohammad Bin Qasim just outside his gates. WHY? Isn't that stupidity? Can India today simply put the troops around Delhi and wish that Pakistan, China and Bangladesh would not attack it? Needless to say that Raja Dahir was murdered his brother converted his daughters were sent to the Harem of Khalifa Hajjaj.
Then again... as history suggests 300 years later even Prithviraj chauhan (no matter how brave he was) was averse to having non-rajputs with him fighting along. Qasim, Ghauri,Ghaznavi all time after time used the same tactics to defeat the Hindu kings that were
1. Early morning attack (before dawn).
2. Beef in closeby streams.
3. Cows protecting their armies.
4. Fast moving horses and lighter swords.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a tool used by converters to show Hindu religion in a bad light.
I am Hindu never learnt anything about Manu Smriti till, people who want to justify their conversion or show Hindu religion in bad light.
Well it might be a tool to show Hindus in a bad light but since modern Hindus don't
believe in caste system what should they do? I guess the only way is to communicate it properly., in other words rebutt the people who are showing us in bad light.

<b>The facts are that inspite of Indians having a better education and better understanding of technology, mettalurgy, warfare tactics (chankaya), we were unable to transformed them into any practical signifance.</b> WHY? My guess is that all Indians are born with a special genetic trait of Chalta Hai attitude.
<!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Jan 6 2004, 03:02 PM-->QUOTE(sbajwa @ Jan 6 2004, 03:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Since the times of Manu only Brahmins and Rajputs have manned the India Armies and thus decline of India. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bajwa, while you have all the rights to be proud of the Sikh resistance, be careful about making loose statements like above. You must back them up with proper studies rather than simple anecdotes. It is OK to use such ad hoc arguments in casual speech, but its is a rather serious issue when you use them to impute the defeat of the Hindus to caste system or brahmins and rajputs. In this regard you appear to be merely parroting what many non-Hindu and leftist authors have said, without much questioning. I fear that you have not read manu or other dharmashAstras from your statements.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The facts are that inspite of Indians having a better education and better understanding of technology, mettalurgy, warfare tactics (chankaya), we were unable to transformed them into any practical signifance.</b> WHY? My guess is that all Indians are born with a special genetic trait of Chalta Hai attitude. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

ALL indians? Are you sure? Even Shri Gurunanak ? Even Swami Vivekananda ? ALL is a big word. See, people on this thread alone are challenging you without saying "Bajwa ka post hai, sab chaltha hai yaar." no?

You are right in saying that there were failures. But it's quite wrong to focus only on the failures and generalize it. There has been success too.. Shivaji stood his ground, and I presume he was an Indian. VeeraPandiya Katta Bomman, Subrahmanya barathiyar, Vanchinadahaiyar, Subrahmanya Shiva, Va.Vu.Chitambaram Pillai, Alluri Seetharama Raju and a ton of others stood their ground.

If you have a point prove it. I shall hear patiently, for I respect your depth of knowledge on Sikh history. But remember sikh history is not the only history, nor is it the most perfect one.
I agree with Hauma.

Sbajwa needs to provide proper evidence before making sweeping statements about the whole of India.

Looks like he is viewing history from a punjabi-centric or sikh-centric point of view. This is applicable only to Punjab & Pakistan and not to the rest of India.

All parts of India were continuously attacked by muslims. Yet the Hindu kingdoms of Orissa, Assam, Gondwana, Nepal & South India soundly defeated them again & again. What could be the reason for this?

The Vijayanagare empire was founded by 2 shepherd boys Hukka & Bukka who were disciples of the Sankaracharya Vidyaranya of Sringeri.

The Vijayanagara army was composed of various jatis found throughout south India.
Having ruled out Casteism, Low technology, aversion to foreign warfare tactics, foreign military technology. So What is the REAL REASON that North India was easily conquered by foreigners? Reason for my generic answers, reponses are that I am here to learn just like everybody.

Here are some more generic stuff that I need to learn about. Can please someone elaborate on following?

Even in Punjab, though muslims were in power Hindus always had administration controls right upto Khyber pass till 1947. All mughal districts had a Diwan (who was always a Hindu) responsible for collecting revenue and paying Armies. Hindus who didn't served in Mughal/Muslim armies were forced to pay Jaziya taxes., and these taxes were collected by Hindu Diwans in Punjab, Rajasthan, etc. Mughals and Muslim administration (before British) was only ruling cities, villages and towns were more or less independents and paid "tribute" once a year to Diwan.

Is above right or wrong?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is the REAL REASON that North India was easily conquered by foreigners?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Continous attack by different countries. Attackers looted countries wealth. No time to retrain locals to protect themself. Kingdom were small and lack of unity among rulers. Lack of wealth to build good Army. Continous attack was also cause of lack of will to fight.
Please visit on-line books at bharatvani.org
and after giving URL, post extracts from "Heoric Hindu Resistance"

The real reason for hindu defeats was stupidity in not exterminating islam when
they won battles
So there was a 1 way ratchet effect
The muslims just had to win 1 battle, whereas the hindus being solely on the defensive had to win every time

Savarkar has condemned the marathas for not massacring muslim civilians

Sind for example fell on the 18th invasion, why was there no counter attack after the first invasion? or the 11th ?
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.
A very nice discussion goin' on here. I'm learning a lot. Thanks to all of you! <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Just one comment: The basic defensive nature of us Hindus maybe attributed to the fact that we never tried to convert anyone by force or threats. We never really went out of our way to spread 'it.' Hence we were pretty satisfied in our own domain. OTOH, Islam's basic ideology was to convert anyone & everyone, by whatever means necessary (Read '<i>at the point of a sword.</i>') And that's why we were always fielding with all the 11 players inside the circle. And now the rules have changed!

Am I generalising this too much? Huh Or it's somewhere in the middle?

Anyway, Please carry on!
I don't agree with sbajwa's thesis. I think he is buying into what britishers used as propoganda for their own reasons of creating a "martial race" army and subdue the hindus. Divide and rule was british policy, and it is a disservice to all the Sikhs who gave there lives for freedom of India to continue using the same language of britishers(and punjab by the way had maximum number of people who died or were hanged for the freedom struggle). By the way I am from punjab too, and all my ancestors have been from time immemorial(I can trace back a very very long time)

Anyway, coming back to the main point I think one big limitation was the thinking that India was the only thing that mattered in the world. Even vishwa vijay was defined only as conquering the lands in the boundary of bharatvarsha as anything outside was considered barbarian-world. So, we never tried to learn from anybody else. The insularness and sense of superiority was IMHO main reason for the downfall.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't agree with sbajwa's thesis.

It is not my thesis. It is a hearsay that I hear from people and books around me. I put that in here to hear the valueable input of Hauma Hammidha and others.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jan 8 2004, 03:17 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jan 8 2004, 03:17 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh...the veggies can never beat the beef-eaters argument one sees in all those Paki forums. <!--emo&Tongue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> In past I've recommend them to go on a pork diet like Chinese coz those pork eaters have been the only nation to get any meaningful result in war with India.

Back to topic......

Lack of unity amongst Indians may have been one of the prime reason foreigners were able to succeed. Alexanders conquest (when there were no Islamic barbarians around - some correct me here) comes to mind, we saw Porous fight alone against the greeks.
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
<!--QuoteBegin-G.Subramaniam+Jan 8 2004, 10:26 PM-->QUOTE(G.Subramaniam @ Jan 8 2004, 10:26 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> I call this the Prithviraj Chauhan Syndrome
GS: Why made Prithiviraj Chauhan let go Ghauri after each of those victories till he actual lost? I always wondered if Prithivi was the original Gandhivadi type before Gandhi.
Thx in advance.
I think it is a fundamental failure of hindu society to see clearly that islam plans to
exterminate us

Prithviraj was not the original fool
The original fools were the sindhi hindus who did not counter attack after the 1st islamic invasion and were finally defeated on the 18th attempt

In 1175 when Ghori invaded Gujurat, Prithviraj refused to help Gujurat
Next he could not control his hormones and eloped with Jaichand's daughter

When I read R.C.Majumdars history, it is clear that hindu society failed to capitalise on its many victories

I feel it is a residual effect of buddhism and Gandhism is the consequence

Until the rise of Shivaji, any offensive war done by hindus was small scale

Hindus can learn from sikhs

1. In Golden Temple, there is a sikh holocaust museum
2. Sikhs pray every day and remember in Ardas the vicitms of muslim tyranny
3. Every Sikh is armed
4. Taking revenge is an acceptable practise among sikhs
Ganhdi was a xtian - turn the other cheek
5. The community spirit is much higher among sikhs
<!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Not to do with any warfare, but "turning the other cheek" has an entirely different meaning. Back in roman days, if you slapped someone with back of your hand, it is supposed to demean and insult someone, so when Christ said turn the other cheek, it was expecting a slap of front of a hand. It was just a matter of self respect and dignity expected of slaves and others when they faced romans. That is all there to it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The main hindu weakness has been lack of ruthlessness when the opportunity
presented itself
Exactly. "Lack of ruthlessness" it still exists., that is the reason that our army jawans spend time and efforts to wrap the enemy terrorists and soldiers and give them proper burials. I say recycle their bodies (donate the eyes, kidneys, liver, heart to needy) and then use the torso to turn it into a feed for our animals in ZOO, National parks, etc. Is there anyone who will agree with me?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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

Sikhs are vegetarians because there is a Rahit Nama (decree as agreed upon by all Sikhs) ordered by Akal Takht that declares that Sikhs will be vegetarians. Guru Hargobind, Guru Tegh Bahadur, Guru Har Rai and Guru Gobind Singh hunted and ate meat. Guru Nanak Says "Argument over food to be vegetarian or non-vegetarian is futile" meaning "personal choice"., Guru Nanak also says "Nikhad Mlechh mal pak khaye" meaning "condemn the muslim who eat the kosher/sacrificial meat" thus any meat that is butchered after it is "offered to God" is also prohibited to Sikhs.

Abdali when he attacked Punjab nine times to punish Sikhs, the first thing he did was to win Amritsar, blow up Golden Temple and butchered cows into the pool (to insult and infuriate sikhs). Eac time, The Sikhs under Kapur Singh and then Jassa Singh would capture few Afghani Soldiers and make them clean the Golden Temple.

Namdhari movement under Bhai Ram Singh (who was soldier of Maharaja Ranjit Singh) looked upon British (and afghanis, muslims) as outsiders. He was the first person in India to boycott British clothes, British idealogies, etc. His group started killing Muslim butchers all over Punjab as a protest against Cow slaughter. He was captured along with 100+ of his group (1860s). He was sentenced to "Kala Paani" at Burma and his group was blown up with cannons at Malerkotla. Namdhari Sikhs later were called "Kookas" because they recited their bani with a "kook" i.e. "highly pitched shout". They still exist and are very strict Vegetarians as well as totally against any materialistic things, Namdharis are famous for simple mass marriages with no dowry, music or garish display. Ever since then Namdharis have occasionally rioted against Cow slaughter and murdered the butchers in current Day Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, Delhi and Western UP.
<!--QuoteBegin-sbajwa+Jan 9 2004, 03:19 PM-->QUOTE(sbajwa @ Jan 9 2004, 03:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> that is the reason that our army jawans spend time and efforts to wrap the enemy terrorists and soldiers and give them proper burials.  I say recycle their bodies (donate the eyes, kidneys, liver, heart to needy) and then use the torso to turn it into a feed for our animals in ZOO, National parks, etc.  Is there anyone who will agree with me? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The scum jihadis who cross LOC and spread mahyem our soil should be fed to pigs that they are. I'd like to see how Hafeez, Salauddin etc recruit new jihadis when we advertise the fate that awaits them. <!--emo&:furious--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /><!--endemo-->

I still can't get over the fact as to how they treated our Saurab Kalia when we gave burial with full honors to their jawans (whose bodies their own govt refused to take back)! <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)