Why India was historically so weak?

[Pratap]

As the title says I would like our members opinion on this. Every state in India has a history of foreign rule of many centuries except some far off regions like Kerala. What were the causes?

1. Hindus were gentle, peaceful and " effeminate"?

2. India did not have horses?

3. Indians had caste system?

4. Indians were simply not up to mark?

 

[Peter]

3 and 1(without effeminate part)

 

[Pratap]

3 and 1(without effeminate part)

Gentle and peaceful nature leads to effeminate types but can you explain how caste was responsible and how we were peaceful? I am sure you do not have opinion poll on how Indians behaved in those days. Given the extensive infighting among Indian powers, I do not buy the peaceful theory. Every state had groups who were plunderers and even small states could put thousands of men in battlefield. I read Kerala history and found immense fighting with every district being involved in feuds of bloody nature.
Bengal itself had Sasanka and Palas who were quite aggressive and controlled lands as far as Kannauj.
Peaceful nature of Indians is myth given higher crime rate than confucian nations and large number of soldiers kept by Indian states. I do not think that Cholas who were raping women of Chalukya domain or Vijaynagar whose soldiers destroyed lot of cities during their invasion of Ahmed nagar or Rana Sanga who was sacking Gujarati towns or Pandyas who destroyed Chola capital and salted their fields were " peaceful". Yet when faced with foreign Islamic powers, they collapsed as easily as it could have been possible.

There are many cases in medieval India of Kings killing rivals and playing game with decapitated heads or cooking head with rice and offering that to Bhairava. How can we call them peaceful and gentle?

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Gentle and peaceful nature leads to effeminate types but can you explain how caste was responsible and how we were peaceful? I am sure you do not have opinion poll on how Indians behaved in those days. Given the extensive infighting among Indian powers, I do not buy the peaceful theory. Every state had groups who were plunderers and even small states could put thousands of men in battlefield. I read Kerala history and found immense fighting with every district being involved in feuds of bloody nature.
Bengal itself had Sasanka and Palas who were quite aggressive and controlled lands as far as Kannauj.
Peaceful nature of Indians is myth given higher crime rate than confucian nations and large number of soldiers kept by Indian states. I do not think that Cholas who were raping women of Chalukya domain or Vijaynagar whose soldiers destroyed lot of cities during their invasion of Ahmed nagar or Rana Sanga who was sacking Gujarati towns or Pandyas who destroyed Chola capital and salted their fields were " peaceful". Yet when faced with foreign Islamic powers, they collapsed as easily as it could have been possible.

There are many cases in medieval India of Kings killing rivals and playing game with decapitated heads or cooking head with rice and offering that to Bhairava. How can we call them peaceful and gentle?

Indians are not any more peaceful than any other race. Indians are just not very ideological. The Japanese and Germans fought a total war of existence for the sake of their respective ideologies. Indians are incapable of fighting a total war because we do not attach ourselves to ideologies. In other words, Indians are not nationalistic as nationalism is also a powerful ideology. Hinduism is also a weak faith in that it fails to inspire an ideological fervor in its followers on levels that Abrahamic faiths often do. Look at the crusades for example.

 

[Pratap]

Indians are not any more peaceful than any other race. Indians are just not very ideological. The Japanese and Germans fought a total war of existence for the sake of their respective ideologies. Indians are incapable of fighting a total war because we do not attach ourselves to ideologies. In other words, Indians are not nationalistic as nationalism is also a powerful ideology. Hinduism is also a weak faith in that it fails to inspire an ideological fervor in its followers on levels that Abrahamic faiths often do. Look at the crusades for example.

Chinese and Koreans were never Abrahmics yet they have so good record in battlefield. Infact, Buddhist Burmese proved much resistant than Muslims of Pakistan to British.

I agree somewhat with lack of ideology and selfishness being there high but it still does not explain why 15,000 Turks of Ghazanavi defeating 42,000 Sahis( ancestors of Dogras and Punjabis)? It was simply a battle not any war of attrition so why such poor performance. Please note that Sahis had good horses and so excuse of military hardware would not work.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Chinese and Koreans were never Abrahmics yet they have so good record in battlefield. Infact, Buddhist Burmese proved much resistant than Muslims of Pakistan to British.

I agree somewhat with lack of ideology and selfishness being there high but it still does not explain why 15,000 Turks of Ghazanavi defeating 42,000 Sahis( ancestors of Dogras and Punjabis)? It was simply a battle not any war of attrition so why such poor performance. Please note that Sahis had good horses and so excuse of military hardware would not work.

I'm sure there are other factors at play that you have not considered. I'm not familar with this so I can't be too specific. I think it's important to rule out everything else before appealing to genetic factors, such as the martial race theory. I don't think this holds much water.

 

[Pratap]

I'm sure there are other factors at play that you have not considered. I'm not familar with this so I can't be too specific. I think it's important to rule out everything else before appealing to genetic factors, such as the martial race theory. I don't think this holds much water.

Martial race theory is not just genetics but also cultural. In my view, 15,000 turks easily destroyed 42,000 Sahis because Turks were a martial race meaning not only they had great bodies and were fine horsemen but were also full of fervor and had a culture where strategy and tactics were highly honed. Vis a vis an average Punjabi, a Turk was stronger, adept at intelligent use of tactics and full of fervor.
All this means that Indians were not good soldiers so choice number 4.

Those who laugh at martial race theory should explain why Vijaynagar empire with so great resources lost so easily to Bahmanis many times and during Ramaraya was destroyed once Deccan states united.
16,000 horsemen destroyed entire South India under Malik Kafur in 1311.

 

[Pratap]

@atheisthindu

Tell me how Marathas with so much resources lost to Abdali?

 

[Pratap]

I would like to share just one interesting fact. Some 2000 years ago, Northern China had a fierce nomadic group called Xiongnu by Chinese. They proved much disastrous to Chinese but Han emperor Wu di defeated them and they came under severe pressure from Han chinese emperor.
The Xiongnu turned their attention and attacked Yuezhi who were simply kicked out of China and came to Kabul valley. These Kushanas in turn kicked easily shakas who came to India. These shakas kicked by kushans established themselves in large parts of India reaching into deccan as far as Nasik and Pune . The kushans controlled an entire empire from Bihar to uzbekistan. ( please note how weak kushans were before xiongnu who were weak before Hans) The shakas slaves of everybody now became powerful in India and in Gujarat ruled for 400 years until they were destroyed by Guptas.

Why such poor military record with losers in their own homes enslaving us easily? Scyhians did not have more than few thousand soldiers yet they battled with Satvahans quite easily.

 

[Pratap]

If u see Indian Sub continent the Barbarian Invaders have only one way to attack india i.e Present day Pakistan (India north Mighty HIMALAYAS,South sea)
so the sindh (pak) accepted&converted ........Wast Punjab accepted &converted.......so they don't face much wrath of Invaders
But MARATHAS/RAJPUTS/SIKHS (PRESENT DAY PROVINCES) ....... Not surrendered easily and they fight back..............so REST OF INDIA IS SAFE or not necessary to fight

Except sindh&west pjb Rest of India is not Weak we see even today

UP, Bengal and Bihar constitute one third of entire Indian subcontinent population and were easily ruled by muslims from 1200 AD till British.
Maharashtra collapsed easily against Khiljis and Marathas ruled easily by muslims for 4 centuries.
Punjab ruled for 5 centuries .
Orissa ruled for 2 centuries by Muslims and 2 centuries by British.

North Karnataka and Telangana ruled for centuries by muslims with Telangana getting independence in 1948.


This would give you idea of how much we have been ruled by foreigners. I am not talking about resistance but rather poor record at battlefields.

 

[Pratap]

If u see Indian Sub continent the Barbarian Invaders have only one way to attack india i.e Present day Pakistan (India north Mighty HIMALAYAS,South sea)
so the sindh (pak) accepted&converted ........Wast Punjab accepted &converted.......so they don't face much wrath of Invaders
But MARATHAS/RAJPUTS/SIKHS (PRESENT DAY PROVINCES) ....... Not surrendered easily and they fight back..............so REST OF INDIA IS SAFE or not necessary to fight

Except sindh&west pjb Rest of India is not Weak we see even today

UP, Bengal and Bihar constitute one third of entire Indian subcontinent population and were easily ruled by muslims from 1200 AD till British.
Maharashtra collapsed easily against Khiljis and Marathas ruled easily by muslims for 4 centuries.
Punjab ruled for 5 centuries .
Orissa ruled for 2 centuries by Muslims and 2 centuries by British.

North Karnataka and Telangana ruled for centuries by muslims with Telangana getting independence in 1948.


This would give you idea of how much we have been ruled by foreigners. I am not talking about resistance but rather poor record at battlefields.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

UP, Bengal and Bihar constitute one third of entire Indian subcontinent population and were easily ruled by muslims from 1200 AD till British.
Maharashtra collapsed easily against Khiljis and Marathas ruled easily by muslims for 4 centuries.
Punjab ruled for 5 centuries .
Orissa ruled for 2 centuries by Muslims and 2 centuries by British.

North Karnataka and Telangana ruled for centuries by muslims with Telangana getting independence in 1948.


This would give you idea of how much we have been ruled by foreigners. I am not talking about resistance but rather poor record at battlefields.

Every civilization had one or two generations which outshone others. India is a big country with infighting and so not always ready for fighting the foreign invasions. But Indians were also pretty good at some other times. For eg. Ranjit Singh wrested back part of Afghan empire where even the English feared to venture at the top of their military might.

So not point painting the whole country with one brush. Given that our old traditions and Hindu religion still exists, they must have fought well somewhere sometime. You cannot be the best all the time.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Bharatiya History is vast, Which period you are referring ? ..

If you mean last 500 years, Then its has been discussed here many time before ..

 

[Bhadra]

India remained weak due to Foreign plunders :

Excerpted from

 

[Prometheus]

As the title says I would like our members opinion on this. Every state in India has a history of foreign rule of many centuries except some far off regions like Kerala. What were the causes?

1. Hindus were gentle, peaceful and " effeminate"?

2. India did not have horses?

3. Indians had caste system?

4. Indians were simply not up to mark?

I think the real problem with us Indians is THE SHORT SIGHTEDNESS > which happens to be a problem in today's day to day objectives as well. We simply cant or find ourselves incapable of planning objectively. We just think of problems in terms of "oh how do I get out of this mess first!" we see this problem prevalent in todays traffic jams, town planning, on Govt planning ... everyone seems to think "oh this is what will get ME out of this mess" the hell with what will happen after I am gone its the other guys headache. Individual growth is important, but it has to be achived with progress of the system as well. watch this video, the guy on whos real life this film is based on , got a Nobel prize for this theory :

 

[p2prada]

We had empires the foreign invaders wouldn't even dream of fighting and at the same time we had amazing empires which were trampled day and night by the invaders.

There are far too many reasons, socio-economic, politics and military. Even weather.

We fared far better than the Europeans and the Persians against the Mongols and the Huns.

 

[bennedose]

As the title says I would like our members opinion on this. Every state in India has a history of foreign rule of many centuries except some far off regions like Kerala. What were the causes?

1. Hindus were gentle, peaceful and " effeminate"?

2. India did not have horses?

3. Indians had caste system?

4. Indians were simply not up to mark?

Your questions indicate that your reading of Indian history comes from particular sources that make you believe the things you write.

Without meaning to offend I would like to point out that you are pre-biasing the discussion by making assumptions in your questions based on a biased version of history.

Every single question you have asked has emerged from a fundamentally racist white supremacist Judaeo Christian view of India's past written by generations of British and other western historians from the 1800s and copied by Indian historians because they got their degrees and qualifications from the same system as the western historians.

I would like to tear down every question one by one and ask why it has been worded in that way, but I'm not sure I have the time.

Indians were never gentle and peaceful. They killed like anyone else. A reaction of bestial violence in India led to the rise of pacifist Buddhism and jainism - and followers of both religions have been attacked in India. So that Gandhian statement about pacifism is rubbish. We are hardly pacifist. Effeminate is bullshit. Its is a ignorant western take. (Read Sudhir Kakar's book on The Indian mind) In fact the Indian view is that if a man is clean shaven (no moustache) or loves another man he is effeminate. Only women and children don't have moustaches.

India did not have horses? Utter crap. Check your reading. Harappan figurines include horses. 3000 BC. Western scholars have argued that Indians horses were not real horses - which is a cop out.

Caste system? My my. You have been filling yourself with western literature - but not your fault. All Indians are educated with this crap. we all follow the jati system' Jati is our community and extended family. Varna was the connection of profession with extended family - like Gujarati diamond merchants. Portuguese and Brits mixed up the jatio and varna system and called it "caste" and we Indians have now internalized that word and are apologizing to the world. We need to re educate ourselves IMO

Indians not up to the mark?

In fact the Indian education ssytem after Macaulay in 1853 or so was based on showing to Indians that they are not up to the mark. Every Indian educated in India right from the 1880s has been taught that he, his system, his background and his history are all not up to the mark? What mark? The mark that the Brits set for us. The mark that automatically put "White, Christian and non Indian above kaloo, Hindoo, faltoo" And too many Indians believe that.

Indians lack self esteem and respect for each other because of this type of education

 

[Bhadra]

Was India really weak ?

But by what standard and whose standards ?

How and with whom should we compare to forward the hypothesis?

With Egyptian civilisation, with Europeans, with Chinese Civilisation, with Roman Civilisation, The Greeks or with Arabs , Turks or Persians..?

Look what happened to humanity in North America ? Was not it conquered by the Europeans ?

What happened in Austrailia?

What happened in Arab, Persian and Turkish worlds after they were overrun by Islam and Islamic Conquerors ?

India withstood everything ?

The Greek onslaughts of gigantic proportions, The Islamic barbarian plunders for 2000 years, the British, Spanish , the French and Portugese plunder of 200 years......

We suffered devastation of our land, agriculture, cities, administration, education, culture, commerce trade and industry throughout these invasions.....

Indians suffered famines, draughts, enslavement brought in by these assaults ..... we lost our kingdoms.... our Armies, ... our women and children.... our universities and our craftsmen.....

But where are those conquorers today ??

We the vanquished are here only ? Why ?

Because as Pratap, the initiator of this thread who is infatuated with the marauders and their racial streaks, would like us to believe, we should commit suicide considering our past...

On the contrary, there is something else in us that makes us stand even today.... not like red Indians or aboriginals who are almost extinct ...

Not that the Muslims did not want us to perish...
Not that the British fell in love with us and did not wish to erase India of humanity as they did in Australia or North America ?


There is something in our balls that I stand even today where I do... a proud man whose ancestors were the biggest scientists, creators, mathematicians, linguists and what not and what not..... where everyone from Chinese to French to Arabians to Greeks used to visit to seek the light of the age...

They will again .... attack. We shall again defend. They will perish .. we will stand....

 

[Dovah]

We were hoping for a cultural victory.

 

[lookieloo]

As the title says I would like our members opinion on this. Every state in India has a history of foreign rule of many centuries except some far off regions like Kerala. What were the causes?

1. Hindus were gentle, peaceful and " effeminate"?

2. India did not have horses?

3. Indians had caste system?

4. Indians were simply not up to mark?

This is incredibly over-simplistic. For starters, you might want to define when your concept of India came into being. "India" as a civilization (but not a unified nation-state) has existed for thousands of years, longer than any other contiguous culture on the planet. "India" as a national identity for which one can determine military strength is a recent invention.