Why were Indian kingdoms defensive against British?

[Peter]

You are again and again talking about why we were defeated.

I'm asking why we lost aggression? Our warrior spirit?

Well when we face great odds we definitely lose our aggression.Suppose a person sees that there is an enemy who is more powerful than him and can destroy him if he fights him.Then of course he would try to negotiate peace with that enemy rather than going into a futile and bloody war which he knows is going to be disastrous for him.Most of our Indian kingdoms were very small and each one was fighting the other.It is not that they were always defensive.They did fight the British.Case in point-Battle of Buxar,Anglo Mysore Wars,Anglo Maratha Wars,Anglo Sikh Wars.In all of theses battles the British emerged victorious despite the ferocity of our kings.As for rebellions there was the Sanyasi Rebellion,Santhal Rebellion,1857 revolt.The people were hostile and aggressive towards the cruel British.However the British crushed all of the rebellions and defeated the princes through might,wit and a lot of treachery.

(As for Ranjit Singh not fighting the Brits it is the same reason why we don`t take back POK)

 

[Peter]

Subversion and intrigue was nothing new for us. Indian rulers were not angels. They employed bribery and treachery freely against each other.

Question is not why they lost, but why they remained defensive? Marathas went to Delhi to serve the Mughals and fight at Panipat, but they could never muster the courage to attack the British base of Bombay!

Indians did attack the British at their bases.See the attack of Sriraj Daullah,the last Nawab of Bengal(ie what we Bengalis call him) on Calcutta in 1756.Calcutta along with Madras were one of the few British bases then.The French had greater territory than British in the circars.As a matter of fact the Nawab even sacked Calcutta and killed a few Europeans.See Black hole Tragedy.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole_of_Calcutta)However the British retaliated.They sent a warship with Robert Clive to Calcutta which bombarded the nawab`s army with cannons.The nawab could do nothing against this.He retreated and the British took back Kolkata.Robert Clive would later fight the famous Plassey battle or skirmish .

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Divide and rule was the key to victory ,kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves instead of
Forming alliance against the British. English rule was cruel and fear was used to control the masses.
Once a kingdom was conquered British controlled the food supply using a scorched earth policy
Or Starvation as a powerful weapon.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Well when we face great odds we definitely lose our aggression.Suppose a person sees that there is an enemy who is more powerful than him and can destroy him if he fights him.Then of course he would try to negotiate peace with that enemy rather than going into a futile and bloody war which he knows is going to be disastrous for him

We suffered 100 times more disaster at the hands of Islamist invaders for a 1000 years. Did we lose our aggression? Our will to fight?

 

[Peter]

We suffered 100 times more disaster at the hands of Islamist invaders for a 1000 years. Did we lose our aggression? Our will to fight?

We did fight.Look at my Siraj Daullah and other threads.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

We suffered 100 times more disaster at the hands of Islamist invaders for a 1000 years. Did we lose our aggression? Our will to fight?

When the food supply is controlled people are more worried about feeding their families then forming
Organized resistance. It easily breaks the will of people. Islamic invaders as you called them did
Not resort this degenerate method. The food supply and enslavement have been methods used
Snce the days of the Pharoah in Egypt.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

La Vida Locavore:: How the British Empire Starved Millions of Indians - And Why It Is Still Important Today

 

[Simple_Guy]

So after four pages all we have are reasons why Indian Kingdoms were defeated.

No one has explained why they were defensive. Let me attempt one explanation.

Indian Kingdoms freely interfered in each others affairs. They even invited foreigners to their aid. But there was no question of the British inviting outsiders to intervene in their internal matters. For example, there was no way the governor of Madras would seek the aid of outsiders in his quarrel with the governor of Bombay. There was a clear separation of powers between the rulers and the fighters. In Indian Kingdoms the fighters were the rulers. And the personal interests of the fighters was considered the same as the interests of the state.

So the polity of Indian Kingdoms, whether they were Hindu or Muslim, was dominated by warrior communities. And they could freely migrate to other kingdoms and change masters. But under the British anyone leaving the army was labelled a deserter. And any such person fighting against British interests became a traitor. So any Indian Kingdom seeking to invade British territory could find no one to join their invasion.

 

[punjab1699]

Ranjit Singh is the classic example of an Indian king being defensive. He had the army, a big kingdom, but he dared not take on the British.

Ranjit signed the Treaty of Amritsar without even fighting a battle.

The British frontier moved from the Yamuna up to the Sutlej without a shot being fired.

We also had guns, Mysorean rocket and artillery was better than British.

Lack of good generals, massive presence of traitors among Indian kingdom's Army, lack of poltical consousness among Sepoys of British army resulted in India's defeat.

Ranjit Singh went to defensive because thought British invincible. Saab lal ho jayega.

They didn't fight, because they wanted to settle score with Pathans and secure Khyber pass. Punjabis had been fighting with them for close to 50 years, and Abdali had attacked golden temple more than once.
Anything past sutlej was under phulkian misls anyway, who had not been attacked due to blessing by Guru Gobind Singh.

In the end, it turned out to be very bad as those same phulkian misls started to try and change Sikhism to victorian thought promoting things such as pacifism and vegetarian lifestyle.

In the end, it was traitors that brought about our downfall. We had better steel than the British but, I'm surprised no one mentioned Peshwa going for British protection. This broke the maratha confederacy with some joining and some fighting.
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ | ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

 

[Simple_Guy]

Misls had been crossing Sutlej for decades. It only stopped once the British forced Ranjit to sign the treaty and give up all claims on those lands.

 

[Ray]

Why were Indian kingdoms defensive against British?

Because they were only concerned about themselves and nothing beyond.

That is why India has been such an easy picking for all invaders.

We see that even today where politicians change sides without a quirk on their conscience that the ideology they professed to die for yesterday is an anathema to the one professing today just to ensure their place in the sun.

Therefore, to have seen Rajas, Maharajas, Nabobs etc kowtowing to the British is but a natural phenomenon.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Indians are not ideological by nature. Nationalism is an ideology after all. Indians naturally lack nationalism.

 

[Virendra]

That is why India has been such an easy picking for all invaders.

It wasn't easy picking IMO. Definitely not for all invaders.

Indians are not ideological by nature. Nationalism is an ideology after all. Indians naturally lack nationalism.

Indians are ideological but the subscription to pervasive ideologies capable of binding nationalism have got lost somewhere. India doesn't think a lot as a nation, though its people do think as individuals. It would be better to say that such national thinking and action is inconsistent in India. For example it activates in cases like 1857, freedom struggle, wars with Pakistan etc. and is mostly dormant otherwise.
Tiny symptoms of another blip were first last visible during Anna movement.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

It wasn't easy picking IMO. Definitely not for all invaders.

Indians are ideological but the subscription to pervasive ideologies capable of binding nationalism have got lost somewhere. India doesn't think a lot as a nation, though its people do think as individuals. It would be better to say that such national thinking and action is inconsistent in India. For example it activates in cases like 1857, freedom struggle, wars with Pakistan etc. and is mostly dormant otherwise.
Tiny symptoms of another blip were first last visible during Anna movement.

Regards,
Virendra

That's a positive spin on it. Indians are ideological but just haven't found the right ideology (namely nationalism) yet - is your claim. It seems plausible at first glance but does not hold much water on reflection. Truly ideological peoples are Europeans and West Asians. I consider hardcore Islam as an ideology in its own right. I don't think I need to show why I think Europeans are ideological - I think it's clear as day. West Asians are even more ideological. Broadly speaking, you see two types of West Asians : a) hardcore islamist types, and b) ultra secular ones. Type a will pray 5 times a day and not even listen to music while type b will have premarital sex, wear modern clothes (for girls) etc... You see a certain pattern where people become extremely loyal to their ideologies. They stay true to them and shun whatever cultural baggage gets in the way of said ideological fervour. You will never find type b muslim south asians and hardly any non muslim south asians who fit type b either.
It is the destiny of Indians to muddle along. We are secular but not really. We are hindus but not really. We are right wingers but not really (many examples of this on this forum ). We are against casteism ! (But how many such people will let their daughters marry a low caste?) Look at Indian politics. It has no clear ideological boundaries. BJP and Congress are not poles apart really. The ideological boundaries seem to blur quite a bit on a great many issue. Consider FDI in retail, for one and contrast BJP's ( a right wing party) vs Congress' (purportedly left wingers) stance. Only in India, communists fight elections and align themselves with a supposedly right wing party (BJP). Indians are not ideological; neither are the Africans. Both were colonized easily. Indians have been muddling along since independence too. Our national character is to muddle along. (Wrong) Ideology can send nations to the depths of hell but (right) ideology has the capacity to lift nations to unimaginable heights too. But this is true only if the subjects are ideological. People who muddle along will sometimes improve their lot and may even do well for a while but are stuck in a valley. They will never experience the peaks.

 

[Julian]

It wasn't easy picking IMO. Definitely not for all invaders.

Indians are ideological but the subscription to pervasive ideologies capable of binding nationalism have got lost somewhere. India doesn't think a lot as a nation, though its people do think as individuals. It would be better to say that such national thinking and action is inconsistent in India. For example it activates in cases like 1857, freedom struggle, wars with Pakistan etc. and is mostly dormant otherwise.
Tiny symptoms of another blip were first last visible during Anna movement.

Regards,
Virendra

1857 is no nationalism, petty chieftains fought for their fiefdoms and many did not like Gurkhas, Rajputs and Sikhs not to mention South Indians. There was no national feeling among masses before early twentieth century and that too was reactionary against British.

 

[Julian]

That's a positive spin on it. Indians are ideological but just haven't found the right ideology (namely nationalism) yet - is your claim. It seems plausible at first glance but does not hold much water on reflection. Truly ideological peoples are Europeans and West Asians. I consider hardcore Islam as an ideology in its own right. I don't think I need to show why I think Europeans are ideological - I think it's clear as day. West Asians are even more ideological. Broadly speaking, you see two types of West Asians : a) hardcore islamist types, and b) ultra secular ones. Type a will pray 5 times a day and not even listen to music while type b will have premarital sex, wear modern clothes (for girls) etc... You see a certain pattern where people become extremely loyal to their ideologies. They stay true to them and shun whatever cultural baggage gets in the way of said ideological fervour. You will never find type b muslim south asians and hardly any non muslim south asians who fit type b either.
It is the destiny of Indians to muddle along. We are secular but not really. We are hindus but not really. We are right wingers but not really (many examples of this on this forum ). We are against casteism ! (But how many such people will let their daughters marry a low caste?) Look at Indian politics. It has no clear ideological boundaries. BJP and Congress are not poles apart really. The ideological boundaries seem to blur quite a bit on a great many issue. Consider FDI in retail, for one and contrast BJP's ( a right wing party) vs Congress' (purportedly left wingers) stance. Only in India, communists fight elections and align themselves with a supposedly right wing party (BJP). Indians are not ideological; neither are the Africans. Both were colonized easily. Indians have been muddling along since independence too. Our national character is to muddle along. (Wrong) Ideology can send nations to the depths of hell but (right) ideology has the capacity to lift nations to unimaginable heights too. But this is true only if the subjects are ideological. People who muddle along will sometimes improve their lot and may even do well for a while but are stuck in a valley. They will never experience the peaks.

Great explaination, not to forget that before modernity, Europeans were ideological about things like Christianity and "white man's burden" and believed in them with their heart. One just has to read Serbian resistance to Ottoman Turks in pre modern age and Bosnian Muslims in 90s to understand how much ideological they are. When people like Hitler emerged, they had an ideology and those who opposed them like Russian bolsheviks had another tough ideology so we had even battles. Nothing such exists in India or even existed at any point of history due to its pagan character and lack of linguistic chauvinism, not to forget castes and diversity.

 

[Ray]

It wasn't easy picking IMO. Definitely not for all invaders.

Maybe I used the terms out of sheer sadness.

I was thinking of the repeated sack of the Somnath and the manner in which the British made us a colony by total guile and the passivity how the Doctrine of Lapse was allowed to be applied against accepted Indian way of accession,

Sorry, if I conveyed the wrong idea.

 

[Julian]

West Asians are even more ideological. Broadly speaking, you see two types of West Asians : a) hardcore islamist types, and b) ultra secular ones. Type a will pray 5 times a day and not even listen to music while type b will have premarital sex, wear modern clothes (for girls) etc... You see a certain pattern where people become extremely loyal to their ideologies. They stay true to them and shun whatever cultural baggage gets in the way of said ideological fervour. You will never find type b muslim south asians and hardly any non muslim south asians who fit type b either.

I disagree here, non muslim Indians do fit type b and among highly professional classes, pre marital sex, alcohol or modern cloths is no taboo. In a survey, it was revealed 16 percent Indian girls from modern areas like Banglore or Mumbai do this and it is normal here. India is going back to its roots after Islamic and British suppression of sexuality finally.

 

[Julian]

Maybe I used the terms out of sheer sadness.

I was thinking of the repeated sack of the Somnath and the manner in which the British made us a colony by total guile and the passivity how the Doctrine of Lapse was allowed to be applied against Indian way of accession,

Sorry, if I conveyed the wrong idea.

You were right sir overall, most of our kingdoms crumbled easily not because Indians are less braver but simply because they had no ideology consistent and all embracing to fight invaders.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

British were very good at intimidating the Indian kings and presenting the view either
You join us in screwing other kingdoms or you wil be screwed. This position of leverage
Always put kings in a defensive position.