Bhadra said:
How long would rajputs fight when their Gurus, the Brahmins would join the invaders at the first instance and Baniyas would do their business at the first instance. Rajputs were only a handful soldiers leaders.
I don't think it is wise to judge like that- either of the Rajput or Brahmins or anyone else in isolation.
I would like to know which cases of desertion you're pointing to and what were the disastrous consequences by such actions.
There are instances where Rajputs went over to Mughal camp. Amber Kachhwahas being the prime case.
There are instances where brahmins, vaishya and others joined Mughal and other invaders Darbars.
There are instances where Jats and Sikhs kept quiet when native and foreign powers collided at their door steps.
If we want to consider Islam's entry in India (the way it has been) as a failure for natives.
The failure was all round and one part of the society cannot be singled out for such sweeping criticism.
Moreover, caste system cannot be blamed for wherever the regular Rajput machinery failed.
It can though be considered a factor for lack of mass resistance once the peripheral defense falls and enemy has swept inside.
Bhadra said:
The society at large failed them.
Indeed. Now we agree. "Society at large failed itself."
Bhadra said:
One gets surprised to know that the best Persian, Arabic and Urdu scholars in India were brahmins.
And how exactly does learning foreign languages become treacherous?
One of the reasons for Islamic rule in India is that while incoming muslims studied India and its DNA closely.
The Indians to the contrary never made an attempt to study and solve the challenge that Islam and muslims presented.
Look at the medieval history. To every single Indian text written on Islam/muslims there are 10 written by them on Indian and Indians. They studied us better than we did them.
Alberuni says that Indias insularity of outlook and abhorrence of foreign travel figures among reasons of their defeat.
Sounds crazy today but it was considered a sin to cross the ancient Aryavarta (
@Iamanidiot - note the national notion?) boundary.
The person would be deemed to have lost his caste/ vedic character and need rituals to re-enter vedic society.
That is just my hazy second hand knowledge on this topic. This rule might have some puranic/brahminic basis.
Probably it was laid down so, because of the relegated un-vedic tribes that fought with their cousins and went westwards.
Example - For the same reason Raja Bhagwant Das was initially reluctant to cross this western boundary to rein in the unruly afghan tribes when Akbar asked him to go on that campaign.
Coming back to the awareness factor. Did you know that Indian rulers had almost no spy system which could have given them knowledge of foreign lands and weaknesses of their foreign opponents.
On the other hand :
"Invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni had a full fledged department of Secret Intelligence known as 'Diwani-i-Shaghul-i-Ashraf-i-Mamlukat' employing both men and women as spies who travelled in disguise collecting vital secret information for their Sultan."
That was just an example.
~Source - "Indian resistance to early muslim invaders upto 1206 A.D." by Ram Gopal Misra
Bhoja said:
The major reason why the Indian rulers of north India could not defeat the Mughals was because they could not unify against their common enemy. Italian traveler Niccolao Manucci stated: "If the Rajas of north India were only united among themselves, the Rana, Rathors, Kashwahas and Bundelas could easily expel Moguls from Hindustan."
Expecting politically independent and separate Kingdoms to glue together is wishful thinking. It can only be possible if those Kingdoms themselves are states under an imperial centralized power exerting control/rule over the pieces.
That system ended in 5th century A.D. So the unity that could've stopped invaders at periphery itself, was missing since the post Gupta period of 6th century AD (with exception of Harshavardhan).
I consider it to be a great achievement to still hold out for centuries in front of the onslaught, while other regions in the world fell within months, like a pack of cards.
Another thing to note here is that while the lack of centralization gave holes to the invaders to plung in. It also created too many power centres where the invaders had to run left, right and centre to stamp their authority. And yet they fell short. North India though battered, was still resisting furiously due to this de-centrality and omni present cultural vitality.
Dismal performance and vanishing of Turks is evidence enough - they were running from one fort to another for regular war and at the same time from one mandal to another to quell rebellions.
Combinedly, Rajputs didn't lack anywhere in front of Sultantes or later the Mughals. But war power is not everything. Vision, strategy, technology, amibition and politics - all are essential.
Men like Babur had it all. There was a vaccum of Pan India rulership and invaders like Mughals clenched the opportunity. They made the right moves.
Rajputs didn't lose it at battlefield. They lost it on the chess board.
By the time Babur arrived, Rana Sanga had already won Gwalior, subdued Malwa, invaded Gujrat and had held a Lodi prince captive. He had defeated Lodi's advance, subdued Khanzadas of Mewat and was breathing down Lodi's neck for the latter's core territories. Peela Khal near Agra was his northern boundary now. Delhi, Malwa and Gujrat all three Sulanates were defeated in respective battles.
~Source - "Maharana Sanga" by Har Bilas Sarda
"Sanga's achievements raised him to a position which inspired all his countrymen with hopes that a change of dynasty was about to take place; and they hailed with joy the prospect of a native Government of India" (Note how the regime change is talked about and how it is the central command of north India where Sanga was expected to reach.)
~ pg 469 W Erskine's "History of India"
So instead of putting it as "Kingdoms didn't unite" I would say it like this - "There was no central imperial power to rule an intact union of states."
Nationalism as we know it today is certainly a much later phenomenon and the infighting was a regular thing in the medieval ages throught out the world. And yes that includes our invaders.
Even then there are quite many occassions where alliances were formed between native Kingdoms to fight off the invaders. But in absence of a proper mechanism, these were only momentary and circumstantial arrangements done in face of potential wars with invaders. They did not bring about a permanent synergy or root out any big problems for good.
Related to this ineffectiveness of last moment alliances, come the defects of military organization and feudal basis of native armies.
Numerous feudal levies with no unity of training and organization, would come together at the last moment fighting under their respective leaders cannot be expcted to move professionally as a single military body. While the enemy soldiers (united by hopes of booty and duty of Islam) were just that - one huge military body fighting seemlessly.
We also failed to match them in heavy cavalry and cavalry-archery.
Except Rajputs with their Marwadi and Kathiawadi breeds, there was literally no Indian power employing a decent standing cavalry in the army. The dashing heavy cavalry Invaders were donning best breeds of horses coupled with best armour and highly agile cavalry archers.
The challenge India faced then was spinning one army after the other towards us. Loads of beasts full of a never before zeal. As said already the zeal was fed by lust of war booty and religious adrenaline.
Given that India was no poor country then, it seems the factors prevailing above just didn't cut enough to save us.
Iamanidiot said:
ALL monarchs in the Indian context none had a vision for the future.In that context gandhiji,patel and ambedkar were great individuals
Actually some did. I remember reading that Shivaji has quoted "India for Indians" in his correspondences. Will try to dig out the source.
Akbar IMHO also had a vision for a country in which people could live as equals (removal of the tax on non-Muslims was very progressive indeed). People who say Akbar wasn't Indian - this is why China is where it is, and we are where we are. They have long accepted the great Kings of the Qing dynasty as part of their culture and heritage while we still sweat over who is, and isn't Indian. In my mind it is simple - if someone hankers for a land outside India as his homeland, he is not Indian. Sir Robert Clive was definitely not Indian despite effectively ruling Eastern India for longer than many Indian rulers. Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar, husband of Jodhabai, colleague of Raja Todar Mal, commander-in-chief of Raja Man Singh, was most definitely Indian.
Akbar was as hard handed and extremist as any other invader until he reached old age. Contrary to what people believe, he kept toggling the Jaziya on and off.
He ordered the massacre of 30,000 defense less civilians in an already fallen fort of Chittor.
Quoting from his own letter '
Fatehnama-i-Chittor' compiled in the list of manuscripts called "Munshat-i-Namakin"). Here goes :
..."This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful"—we spend our precious time to the best of our ability in war (ghiza) and Jihad and with the help of Eternal God, who is the supporter of our ever���increasing empire, we are busy in subjugating the localities, habitations, forts and towns which are under the possession of the infidels, may God forsake and annihilate all of them, and thus raising the standard of Islam everywhere and removing the darkness of polytheism and violent sins by the use of sword. We destroy the places of worship of idols in those places and other parts of India. "The praise be to Allah, who hath guided us to this, and we would not have found the way had it not been that Allah had guided us"...
...the whole victorious troop entered the fort. In accordance with the imperative Command "And kill the idolators all together,"....
Now from Tabaqati-i-Akbari, by Bakshi Nizamuddin Ahmad
...The Emperor mounted on an elephant, and, attended by his devoted followers on foot, entered the fortress. An order for a general massacre was issued, and more than 8000 Rájpúts who were in the place received the reward of their deeds.* After noon the slaughter was stayed...
Just because he was diplomatic when it suited him and wanted to rule the whole of India doesn't make me respect him as a great King. At the best he was patchy and not much better than his bigoted inheriters like Aurangzeb.
Regards,
Virendra