Why were Indian kingdoms defensive against British?

[Simple_Guy]

All the battles forming the British Raj in India were fought inside the target Indian states. You don't hear about attacks by Indians on Calcutta, Bombay, Madras. Why was it so?

 

[Virendra]

All the battles forming the British Raj in India were fought inside the target Indian states. You don't hear about attacks by Indians on Calcutta, Bombay, Madras. Why was it so?

There was no 20th century nationalism back then.
State mindedness was pervasive in the politico-military setup.

Why have we not taken any action on Pakistan's sinisterism?
Mind you, future generations would be opening similar threads with that question .. except that it would be in past tense then.

I think we're a bit reactive and stagnated as a civilization. We've lost agility (whatever tiny bit of it was there).
We don't scout, we don't critically study foreign ideas, people or forces and we don't change or reform easily.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
V

 

[Ray]

Something like Advani still hoping and hedging his bet that Modi fails and he becomes the PM!

 

[The Messiah]

There was no 20th century nationalism back then.
State mindedness was pervasive in the politico-military setup.

Why have we not taken any action on Pakistan's sinisterism?
Mind you, future generations would be opening similar threads with that question .. except that it would be in past tense then.

I think we're a bit reactive and stagnated as a civilization. We've lost agility (whatever tiny bit of it was there).
We don't scout, we don't critically study foreign ideas, people or forces and we don't change or reform easily.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
V

What we love is to be deluded idiots and fight amongst ourselves.

 

[Simple_Guy]

I was looking for military causes. The western writers seem to think a lack of staff officers in Indian armies was a drawback.

From Comte de Modave in 1776: "The army of an Indian prince does not form a regular whole as among us. The different bodies which compose them have no connection with one another. No staff officer, particular, or general is seen among them."

 

[Virendra]

What we love is to be deluded idiots and fight amongst ourselves.

Infighting was common in the chivalrous medieval age, in not just India but the Central Asia and elsewhere (places that originated attacks).
While that works for nomadic and war driven economies, it doesn't for a defensive agrarian civilization that was always called 'A Golden Bird'.

 

[Virendra]

I was looking for military causes. The western writers seem to think a lack of staff officers in Indian armies was a drawback.

From Comte de Modave in 1776: "The army of an Indian prince does not form a regular whole as among us. The different bodies which compose them have no connection with one another. No staff officer, particular, or general is seen among them."

Majority of Indian Kingdoms didn't keep standing armies and dedicated cavalry units till the passing of Gupta Age and even immediately after that.
Increasing feudalism and clan states meant that the default setup of military power was a de-centralized one.
That helps in resisting an already occured invasion, but not in avoiding one in the first place.

 

[pkroyal]

Even modern Psychology recognizes three types of centers through which individual humans/ cultures / collectives, exist/ react .

Thinking Centre ( perceptive,secretive,isolated,responsible,versatile & scattered)
Instinctive Centre ( purposeful, perfectionist, receptive,self confident,decisive, willful & confrontational)
Feeling Centre ( generous,demonstrative, people pleasing, image conscious,expressive & self absorbed )

Our civilization is based more on the Thinking + (strong) Feeling Centre whereas the Western civilizations are on the Instinctive + ( weak) Feeling Centre

Western ethics generally aims at teaching how to act: Eastern ethics at forming character. A good character will no doubt act rightly, or refrain from action, according to circumstances.

Throughout recorded history, India has had a strong tradition of yogis, rishis, wandering forest philosophers. We thus imbibed the thinking mode as these wandering learned men had great appeal among the masses.

The dominant philosophy was DHARMA.

DHARMA (duty) to be fully what one is . Ideal: justice made alive. To follow the path described in the teachings . To do what the circumstances demand of one. (All.)

No human being remains untouched by these three centres ( akin to sat , rajas & tamas gunas in our philosophy)

Since individuals make a society / civilization it is the dominant centre they embrace that makes for their outlook / conduct.

There is no equilibrium possible in embracing these centres. One always embraces a dominant one at the cost of the other
( which gets reduced in value)

Armies were meant only to defend, rarely to expand and enhance one's Kingdom. Even battles were fought according to certain conventions ( rules of engagement), prisoners were never ill treated, ladies, children & the elderly accorded amnesty. Aberrations did exist but were reviled & looked down upon.

Even the gory act of war fighting was raised to divine level as death of a soldier in battle would earn him a direct place in heaven even though he may not be a regular worshipper or bhakt, gyani, dhyani or learned in holy scriptures

 

[Maharaj]

Majority of Indian Kingdoms didn't keep standing armies and dedicated cavalry units till the passing of Gupta Age and even immediately after that.
Increasing feudalism and clan states meant that the default setup of military power was a de-centralized one.
That helps in resisting an already occured invasion, but not in avoiding one in the first place.

Is this really true?
I read that the Rashtrakuta Empire and Pratihara Empire had huge armies in the 9th and 10th century.
Even the Arab travelers were impressed by the military might of both Indian Dynasties.
I would even say that the Pratihara Empire and Rashtrakuta Empire were more powerful than
the Gupta Empire.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Armies were meant only to defend, rarely to expand and enhance one's Kingdom. Even battles were fought according to certain conventions ( rules of engagement), prisoners were never ill treated, ladies, children & the elderly accorded amnesty. Aberrations did exist but were reviled & looked down upon.

All this was in Ancient India.

After the Islamic invasions the "aberrations" were the norm. Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals, Afghans, Jats, were all masters of raiding with their swarms of cavalry. And these raids extended to hundreds of kilometers from their bases.

So if Indian armies could invade and ravage each others kingdoms....why not against the British?

 

[pkroyal]

All this was in Ancient India.

After the Islamic invasions the "aberrations" were the norm. Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals, Afghans, Jats, were all masters of raiding with their swarms of cavalry. And these raids extended to hundreds of kilometers from their bases.

So if Indian armies could invade and ravage each others kingdoms....why not against the British?

Good observation !

The British came as traders ( East India Company)
And like all traders were initially adept at fawning & ingratiating themselves to their customers ( Indians)
Eventually with their expansionist designs & uncanny ability to see innumerable '-----s in their host countries armour' they started keeping armed guards to protect their ware.

All sea faring nations ( Britain was one ) tend to produce hardy Captains / leaders of men as history proves it.
Long sea voyages,controlling mutinies on board, having rationed potable water, rationing food , the use of sword ( cutlass ) / weapons against likely pirate attack made them truly vicious fighters. Since the crew was from the same ethnicity & worked with their masters on a foreign land ( India) they bonded well as a survival instinct.

Robert Clive's initial victory in Madras Presidency can be attributed to a/m causes achieved with a handful of troops.

Later as they expanded & spread their influence they paid heed to :-

Organizing ability ( better than the kingdoms) - use of locals as guards / sepoys
Non discriminatory Approach - initially enrolled any one fit & healthy in their Company ( not on caste / colour / creed)
Attraction of Uniform - gave uniforms to build a sense of identity
Fair , just & honest - the officers were fair , just & honest in their dealings with the local troops ( read books on the Raj)
Learnt local language & customs - spoke hindustani, avoided use of beef etc
Married local women - innumerable instances
Used modern methods, prevalent in Europe for war fighting ( e.g. the in three's formation was for musket drill, the rifles were muskets which were muzzle loaded, the front row would fire then get on their knees on orders while the second row would fire, the first one would be cleaning the muzzle & reloading
the second would go down on their knees & the third would open fire & similar cycle would repeat.
Hardy Officers - Entire leadership of the British came from boys with a public school background ( sporty, disciplined, good riders, admired by their men ) and most of them were from the country side ( not many from strictly urban areas ), which means they loved the outdoors, had respect for hard labour & were robust to withstand Indian climatic conditions.

For any Indian kingdom this was a formidable combination of Leader/ Group/ Situation backed by good organization, man management & fighting skills.

After a few victories their reputation carried them rather actual battles with small kingdoms.

As they gobbled up smaller rival Kingdoms they exploited basic human nature of envy, jealousy, hatred & pride /ego to the hilt.

Within a century the juggernaut from a small scale trading enterprise had become an Empire .

 

[Simple_Guy]

Within a century the juggernaut from a small scale trading enterprise had become an Empire.

The very fact that it took a century, negates most of the points you listed.

Hardiness of Indian warriors was far superior, most of them had adopted European style armies, and European officers. And all the battles the two sides fought were pretty tough.

The reason for not taking offensive actions against British territory, despite all the hordes of cavalry, is baffling.

 

[pkroyal]

The very fact that it took a century, negates most of the points you listed.

Hardiness of Indian warriors was far superior, most of them had adopted European style armies, and European officers. And all the battles the two sides fought were pretty tough.

The reason for not taking offensive actions against British territory, despite all the hordes of cavalry, is baffling.

India was not a monolithic Nation before the advent of the British. Nearly 562 small & large kingdoms dotted its landscape, mughal dominance in many parts had broken the will of the people, arrival of the British in some ways was a welcome distraction from the yoke of the Mughals / Muslim rulers.

The Mughal empire was waning ( due to variety of reasons) and smaller Kingdoms in South from where the British expanded did not have large armies, some had just 80 -100 under fed, ill clothed men to fight for them. When a rival smaller Kingdom was attacked / gobbled up, the opposing Kingdom watched with glee and never came to its rescue because of reasons I have already enumerated earlier.

Thus with uncanny fighting ability , regional internecine conflicts and word of mouth publicity they managed to gradually subjugate larger Kingdoms. Since the peasantry was already oppressed because of Muslim/ Mughal rule there was no mass uprising against the British

Empires take years to build, regional dominance is possible in shorter time frame.

 

[TrueSpirit1]

@Simple_Guy Many Indians were psychologically disadvantaged due to their perception about Britishers' skin complexion. This led to a sort of sense of awe & indirect/passive reverence which manifested itself as a form of inertia in Indian kingdoms against them.

Above all, the fact that Brits were not the Jihadi types (evangelists or fanatic crusaders) helped them a lot. Religious fanaticism was one thing which went against the French (Dupleix & his predecessors in South India).

Most alliances among Indian kingdoms were weaved in the name of DharmaYudhh but they was no such case against the evolved Britishers (when compared with Central Asian barbarians).

Further, British had a way with the Indians. They understood us like no one else did. They leveraged our administration / bureaucratic ability, imbibed the Indian hardiness & battle-readiness by having natives form a significant % of their troop (cannon-fodder), paid them regular, fair salaries & installed a sense of pride, code of honour & loyalty among native troops, & treated them in a professional manner while not letting fear or favour cloud their judgement. Such handling is rare in India even today except for the last surviving bastion of British professionalism, i.e. Indian Armed Forces. But, even that is deteriorating due to the way we intrinsically are.

They respected our spiritual traditions, rarely interfered with religious / esoteric ways, introduced progressive Western ideas that appealed to both Brahman intellectuals as well peasant class alike & exploited our class / caste / regional divides to the hilt.

Further, by late 18th century, musket warfare had evolved to an extent that cavalry could no longer dominate the battlefield. British infantry were more of a resolute force to reckon with, than the withering Mughal artillery was, in that era. And, they had more experience + expertise with modern, evolving artillery being a naval superpower, relying on sea-lanes for their survival unlike the situation in Indian subcontinent or Central Asia.

 

[Virendra]

Is this really true?
I read that the Rashtrakuta Empire and Pratihara Empire had huge armies in the 9th and 10th century.
Even the Arab travelers were impressed by the military might of both Indian Dynasties.
I would even say that the Pratihara Empire and Rashtrakuta Empire were more powerful than
the Gupta Empire.

I was talking about standing armies and more specifically standing cavalries.
Huge armies have been plenty in India, be it ancient age or medieval.

 

[Virendra]

All this was in Ancient India.

After the Islamic invasions the "aberrations" were the norm. Rajputs, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals, Afghans, Jats, were all masters of raiding with their swarms of cavalry. And these raids extended to hundreds of kilometers from their bases.

So if Indian armies could invade and ravage each others kingdoms....why not against the British?

Technology also has a role to play (though it is not the sufficient criteria to absolve native Kingdoms).
Native armies/hordes were technically inferior and far less organized in warfare than the British.
Also, the European Gunpowder technology had not replicated down to the grassroots yet. Matchlocks and rifles were still limited amongst the traditional armies and even rarer among the other unruly hordes or rebels.

Other reasons that are more ideological and conceptual; have been touched earlier.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Virendra]

India was not a monolithic Nation before the advent of the British. Nearly 562 small & large kingdoms dotted its landscape, mughal dominance in many parts had broken the will of the people, arrival of the British in some ways was a welcome distraction from the yoke of the Mughals / Muslim rulers.

India didn't have a clean transition from Mughals to British. There were Marathas in the interim.
Of course they couldn't fully create an empire but had partial success.
When Mughals were weakening, whatever strength was left in the people got broken by :
a) Frequent droughts and famines
b) Marathas raids

 

[Simple_Guy]

India didn't have a clean transition from Mughals to British.

The transition was clean in east India.....after defeat of Mughal Nawab of Bengal. After defeating Tipu sultan the British became dominant in the south.

Third place they expanded was from Bombay. This was right in the middle of the maratha confederacy but they were busy in their internal quarrels. They even invited the British to help in these fights! And worse was the numbers of muslim mercenaries they employed.

From Armies of India:

The Sikh wars and the First Afghan War are well known from the many histories and biographies that bear on them. These two Mahratta campaigns, however, are little known, yet many of the most famous battle honours of the surviving Company's regiments, as well as those of the British Line, are derived from them.

The enemy who fought against us were principally the Mahratta chiefs, who controlled immense bands of mercenary horse and foot, largely trained and officered by Frenchmen, and comprising every lawless man in the country-side, with Persians, Arabs, Afghans, and even negroes.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Greatest defeat revisited by descendant of Scottish officer

The destruction of Baillie's East India Company force by an army under the command of Tipu Sultan — who was later to be defeated himself by Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington of Waterloo fame — led to widespread fears in Britain that its Indian colonies were lost, with the imprisoned Baillie a convenient scapegoat.

Author Alan Tritton, himself a descendant of the Baillie family, is not so convinced of his ancestor's guilt and in his book When The Tiger Fought The Thistle, asks whether Baillie deserves to be remembered as a Scottish military hero rather than as a failure.

Without the Scots there would not have been much of a British Empire, which, in any case, mainly came about as the result of the Union between England and Scotland in 1707. The civil and military staff of the Honourable East India Company were mainly Scottish like William Baillie.

What really happened in this short but disastrous campaign, for which Colonel William Baillie seems to have been blamed, has been revealed by my researches at the Highland Archive Office in Inverness and the Scottish National Archive Office in Edinburgh and the India Office Library in the British Library — none of this material has hitherto been researched.

It proves conclusively from all the officers' diaries, reports, memoranda etc — in other words all those who were engaged in the campaign — that Sir Hector Munro of Novar was almost entirely to blame for the disaster that befell Colonel William Baillie and his Brigade Column. The result was that the wounded Colonel Baillie was forced to surrender, forced to watch his fellow officers being decapitated in front of him and then forced to march for several weeks from Pollilur to Seringapatam — some of the time in fetters — being spat at by the inhabitants of the villages and towns through which he was marched.

In the Seringapatam dungeons, for most of the time he was placed in irons and manacled to the wall. He became ill and being denied medical help by Haidar Ali died in November 1782 as far away as is possible from his beloved Dunain, its woodlands and his fishing on the River Ness — it was indeed a tragedy.

 

[Simple_Guy]

By the way this Hector Munro had won the Battle of Buxar in Bihar.

900 European and 7000 Indian troops, supported by 20 field-guns.

Against them 50,000 strong army of Mir Kasim, nawab of Awadh, and Mughal emperor Shah Alam. And if that was not enough they also had a whole brigade of modern troops under the German mercenary 'Samru'.