We will summarize the influence of the Hindu religion on the military value system of the Hindus, and go into the causes of Hindu military defeats. We will do that in light of the overall Hindu military performance over a 2,000 year period, and not restricted to any one particular event, decade, century, or period.
Causes — That Were Not
Before we go into the actual causes of Hindu defeats, we will spend a few minutes over the causes that were not responsible for the defeats, but are projected as being responsible. Like all defeated people, Hindus have shown great dexterity in inventing ingenious causes for their defeats. We list below such projected causes:
Projection 1: India of those days was divided into small states.
Fact 1: Most of the so-called 'small' Indian states were each bigger than Ghazni and Ghur, from which the invaders had originated. Some of the Indian states, including that of Prithviraj Chauhan, were of medium size, and individually many times the size of Ghazni and Ghur. Even otherwise, it was incumbent on one of the bigger Indian states to incorporate into itself, smaller states by persuasion, if possible; by the sword, if necessary. This is the route clearly chartered by Chanakya in his Arthshastra, and followed by every successful general of the world from Alexander, Caesar and Genghis Khan to Mahmud of Ghazni. No Hindu general after the 7th century AD considered that option. They had limited vision, and would often rejoice after recording a modest victory over a small neighbor. Bards in the service of the ruler did the rest; they magnified it as a great world-class victory. That was enough to boost the ego of the ruler.
In any case, the first period of Hindu slavery had started around 180 BC, when the barbarian tribes snatched power from the mighty Mauryan Empire (no excuse of small states there).
Projection 2: These Indian 'small' states were quarrelling with each other.
Fact 2: The referred quarrels were normal neighborly conflicts, which were a world norm those days; there was nothing unusual about it. These should not be given undue importance. At the time of the actual invasions by Mahmud of Ghazni (1009 AD) and Muhammad Ghauri (1192 AD), the Rajput rulers of North West India displayed exemplary unity. A large majority of them (almost all) sent their forces to fight the invasions under one command.
Projection 3: There were many collaborators among the Indian rulers. The often quoted names are of Jaichand of Kannauj (12th century), and Mir Jaffer of Bengal (18th century).
Fact 3: This is a highly exaggerated point. Some recent research has shown that there is no particular evidence to support the charge that Jaichand actually collaborated with Ghauri; the story is based largely on folklore. Anyway, collaborators have been known to exist in all civilizations. An odd collaborator in a few hundred years should not make an entire subcontinent go under with such ease. Surely, India of those days was not so fragile.
Projection 4: Ghazni and Ghauri are often blamed for descending on Bharat with a large fleet of swift-footed cavalry, with 'mounted archers' who could fire most accurately, even when at full gallop. (The Hindus armies had no answer for them.)
Fact 4: Hindus do not like to examine why no Hindu general could appreciate the central role of the horse as a 'weapon of war'. General after Hindu general continued to rely on the delusive strength of elephants, which let them down repeatedly, and at the most crucial moments of battle.
Projection 5: Hindus like to blame Babur for having come with gunpowder cannons. Tamberlane, Nadir Shah and others are often blamed for being barbaric.
Fact 5: Hindus were by far the most advanced civilization of those days. Why did they not consider inventing gunpowder? It appears that issues of war were no priority for them. War is a very dirty business; it is not a slugfest between ageing aunts. Hindus could have themselves displayed a bit of barbarity (meaning aggressive spirit).
Projection 6: Hindus often like to blame Muslim armies for not following the rules of war. In 2009, a TV serial showed Prithviraj Chauhan sitting on the top of Muhammad Ghauri, with his sword on the latter's throat. Just at that moment, sunset was announced, and Prithviraj let Ghauri go, to resume the fight the next day. Muhammad Ghauri could not believe his eyes, and his luck. As per this story, he attacked the same night and inflicted a crushing defeat on Prithviraj. That one defeat pushed the great Bharat varsha into 750 years of slavery.
Fact 6: The practice of only daylight fighting was prevalent in the Ramayana/Mahabharta days. The above story presumes that Ghauri would have been reading those epics before coming to Bharat. The episode is obviously not true; no sane person, leave alone a general of caliber, could have followed such a fatal practice in the 12th century AD. Still, the TV serial chose to put up this (imaginary) episode, presumably in the belief that the public would lap it up; some may even consider it as a high point of Hindu civilization. If our interpretation is even partly correct, things could not have got any worse.
Projection 7: It is fashionable for Hindus to blame the British for their policy of 'Divide and Rule'.
Fact 7: Instead of blaming the British, Hindus should ponder why they allowed themselves to be so easily divided. The cold fact is that we were hopelessly divided even before the coming of the British. The British followed their dharma; we forgot ours.
Projection 8: Whenever the question of prolonged slavery of the Hindus arises, many Hindus are often heard saying that in spite of all that, the Hindus civilization did survive.
Fact 8: It all depends upon as to how one defines 'survival'. For most part of the slavery period, Hindus had no control over their own destiny; their women were routinely dishonored, their mandirs demolished and gods humiliated. Every type and manner of atrocities was inflicted on them. If all that constitutes as 'survival', we concede the point.
Projection 9: Hindus love to project that they were always brave, and continue to be so now. They say that Bharatvarsha was always teeming with shur-virs (Bravest of Bravehearts), who would smash anyone casting a lustful eye on this most holy land. As an example, they often refer to the victory of Lord Rama over Ravan.
Fact 9: For the last about 1000 years, Hindus could not produce a 'Shur-vir' who could teach a lesson or two, to the following types: — Violators of Hindu hearth and homes, and tormentors of Hindus — Molesters of Hindu women (in hundreds or tens of thousands) — Demolishers of Hindu mandirs (in thousands). There was not one Hindu 'shur-vir' who went to Ghazni and Ghur to avenge the honor of their women. The mighty and the powerful watched from the sidelines, waiting to be attacked. No provocation was enough to stir them for any type of offensive action.
Having covered the 'non-causes' of Hindu defeats, we analyze the possible cause of defeat in the following paragraphs.
Causes — That Were
Taking an overall and long-term view of issues and events, the military downfall of the Hindus during the last one thousand years, could be attributed to the following main factors, largely, due to the wrong interpretation of the Hindu religious scriptures:
"¢ Too much stress on the individual, rather than on the nation. Hindus were obsessed with purifying their individual soul, and trying to merge it with the 'World Soul Brahman'. There was a fruitless search for an illusory entity called 'moksha' (salvation). The Hindus' priority was to ensure a secure next life, rather than concentrate on the present one. They perhaps considered the present life as transitory, if not actually 'maya' (illusion).
"¢ Under the influence of the preceding factor, Hindus lost the distinction between 'mastery' and 'slavery'. They perhaps argued that due to the transitory nature of the present life, 'mastery and slavery' were some concepts largely in the mind. At the practical level, such types of issues did not make much of a difference, and were no reason for dispute, leave alone bloodshed. In the totality of circumstances and events (over 2000 years), it is difficult to avoid the impression that at some level, Hindus might have been even comfortable with their 'slavery'. Their efforts to get rid of slavery were few and far between, and mostly half-hearted. Even when opportunities for emancipation were presented to them, they failed to exploit these. We have covered those examples in our text earlier.
"¢ At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the 'ass' syndrome. Whilst these issues might have some sort of a niche in an individual's life, these can possibly have no space in a nation's life. Hindus could not distinguish between the individual and the nation. They thought that what is good for the individual, must be good for the nation. The concept of ahimsa was entirely an import from Buddhism; the word does not even appear in the Rig Veda. If the word 'ahimsa' appears in some Hindu texts, it does not have the meaning that we are trying to give it presently. We make these comments with due apologies to Mahatma Gandhi.
"¢ In the Vedic times, animal sacrifice was the main means to please the Vedic gods. Animal slaughter was a daily affair. Ashevamedha (horse-sacrifice) was the most exalted ritual, which removed all sin. Under the influence of Buddhism, Hindus became averse to bloodshed (even in the service of the nation). It is possible that, gradually, they perhaps became averse to the very sight of blood.
"¢ The hot and humid climate of India may have been a contributing factor. We may note that all invaders came from cold or very cold climates. Further, the invaders were all fiercely non-vegetarian. Now, nothing can be done about the climatic conditions. However, there may be an occasion to revisit the dietary habits.
"¢ Hindus take pride in saying that their religion is tolerant, all-inclusive, assimilative, lacking assertiveness, etc. The net effect is that Hinduism gets projected as effete, meek and submissive.
"¢ It has been sometimes expressed that a Hindu has the characteristics of daya, karuna and kshama (compassion and forgiveness). From the military angle, these are self-destroying concepts.
The above interpretation of Hinduism emerges out of a gross mis-reading and wrong interpretation of the Hindu scriptures. Hindus also forgot an important principle enunciated in the following couplet:
Kshama sohati us bujangh (snake) ko, jis ke pas garal (poison) hai
Uska kya, jo dant-heen, vish-heen, vineet, saral hai.
(Only that snake can give forgiveness, which has poison in its fang;
What use is the one which is without fangs and poison, is humble and simple.)
Chanakya in his Arthshastra says that a snake even without poison should behave as if he has poison in his fangs.
Aggressive Spirit Missing
In view of the above types of factors, Hindus lost their aggressive spirit; they were overtaken by a defensive mindset. Their central slogan became 'We will fight only when attacked'; and they stuck to it steadfastly. One irrefutable lesson of military history is that nations and generals without an offensive mindset can do no good even in the defensive mode. World military history proves the inviolability of this dictum. The only way to save 'Ajmer and Delhi' (and therefore Bharat) was for Prithviraj Chauhan to go and capture Ghazni and Ghur in Afghanistan. He had the capability and military muscle to do that; but the mindset was missing. But for that type of 'defensive mindset' Bharat would never have been a slave.
Closely allied with the aggressive spirit, is the question of attitude towards 'risk-taking'. There is a famous saying — 'No risk, no gain'; this dictum is particularly applicable to war situations. Only the bold and daring generals succeed. Fortune helps the brave, who will inherit the earth. In an earlier chapter, we have quoted the Sanskrit shloka 'Veera Bhoga Vasundhra — the Brave will enjoy the Earth.' Lord Krishna in the Bhagwad Gita, effectively gave the same message; but, the Hindu antennas did not receive it. Thus, along with the loss of aggressive spirit, Hindus also became 'Risk-Averse'; 'Safety first' became their motto. Otherwise, there is no reason for Prithviraj Chauhan for not mounting a campaign to capture Ghazni and Ghur. If you dither at a crucial point in history, you are likely to be assigned to its dustbin. In view of the totality of the above factors —
"¢ Ask not — 'Why the Hindus were defeated?'
"¢ But ask — 'Why the Hindus were never on the OFFENSIVE?'
Unfortunately, this latter question has never been asked of the Hindus; neither by themselves, nor by anyone else. The impression that is sought to be created is that the 'Offensive' option was never available to the Hindus, and is not available now. Hindus themselves are at the forefront of creating this impression. Hindu apologists remark that 'Offensive' actions are not in Hindu culture. 'We are not that type of people' is a phrase often heard. This is a complete distortion of the Hindu religion.
The true Hindu scriptures are all for aggressive and offensive actions, for that one aim of achieving victory. Even the means adopted for that do not matter. We have covered this aspect in detail in our earlier chapters (40 and 41); here we just quote a Rig Veda Hymn (RV 6.75.2):
"With the bow let us win cows, with the bow let us win the contest and violent battles with the bow. The bow ruins the enemy's pleasure; with the bow let us conquer all the corners of the world."
We must take note of the repeated use of the words 'Win' and 'Conquer' in the above short hymn; 'Violent' battles are recommended. 'World conquest' is a slogan given by the Rig at that stage of pre-history. All this establishes great stress of the Rig on 'Offensive Actions' and 'Victory' — always and under all circumstances.
The Hindus' problem lay in the fact that at some stage they got confused about their true scriptures. Most of the Hindu religious literature that emerged in the Christian era had a thick coating of Buddhism. That is true of the Puranas that dominate present day Hinduism. The ordinary folk are not able to discern that Buddhist coating; the learned perhaps are not interested.
We conclude this part by recording the following three broad reasons for the Hindu military defeats, especially during the 2nd millennium AD:
— Almost total absence of the 'Aggressive Spirit'
— General lack of enterprise and aversion to 'Risk Taking'
— The above two resulting in the absence of the 'Killer Spirit'
The above attitudes have arisen in the Hindus, out of misreading and wrong interpretation of Hindu scriptures, combined with their inability to identify their true scriptures. Some of that misreading may have been deliberate; it helped the Hindus explain away their prolonged slavery, in rather easy terms.
The overall conclusion that emerges is that Hindus like to blame everyone, except themselves for their woes; this is their trademark. Rather than facing the hard realities of life, they like to live in a cocoon of 'make-believe'; it helps their 'self-delusion'. Thus, the cause for Hindu defeats lay in their mind, rather than in their muscle. Only after Hindus accept and face this bitter truth that any recovery process can start. The issues involved are of such basic nature that the recovery process may extend over many decades, perhaps even a century. However, there is little probability that Hindus will accept this conclusion. Rather, they would attribute unholy motives to anyone talking along these lines, and call him ignorant, knave and prejudiced, who is not acquainted with the great Hindu culture.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2010/08/causes-of-indian-military-defeats.html:emot158:
Food for thought!!
