@Virendra
Having a small state doesn't mean one could be excused from being aware of surroundings or being agile and scouting out.
If it is a small state, have fewer spies. But you ought to have them and use them.
Small states tend to have narrow outlook and mainly are concerned with their own rivals of India(in our case) rather than an Islamic marauder. The idea that if small states then less but equally efficient number of spies is flawed in sense that we are not talking about mere presence or absence of spies rather their effectiveness. So it was not that Rajputs could not have thought of spies(Arthasastra was there and so the idea must be there) but how much they fared against Muslim spies of Ghurids. It just did not require you to send some scouts but rather that a well established spy network is there which can recruit spies, can persuade them to risk their life, can employ them for every season so moves, counter moves, feigned tactical retreats all were noticed by them. My view is that since Muslim empires were larger, they had benefit of economy of scale and principle of specialization.
They had wide networks and trade contacts enabling them to get first hand account of every area and major routes( even now many MNCs are also used as info gathering bodies) and so in this area( as in others) it was not lack of spies rather complexity and speciality of them.
Muslim geographers wrote about Japan, I do not think that Indians did same. It was not because Indians were stupid, rather lack of centralized states meant we had less merchants in sea and so less records of far flung areas.
Rajput Kingdoms of north west show no signs of operational spy networks. Was is not important for them to understand radical Islam back then, like you and I do and elaborate so easily today? But how could they do it. They weren't in the practice of actively studying enemies and strangers
We have very few records( in some cases we do not know even when a certain king died) so it is evident that they would speak less about operational spy network. I agree that inference shows such a thing but again , it was lack of standing army which nullified anything. Even if spy reported arrival of ghazis, it took time for Rajputs to group their feudal levies.
Spies could not have helped in understanding radical Islam( I hope you do not buy that there is even a moderate Islam). This was job of our intellectuals and they failed horribly. These intellectuals were debating on Nava Nyaya but had no time to pick up Quran and see what it had for them.
After somnath was sacked, its head priest was allowing construction of mosque in Veraval with his blessings. Did it need spy to understand Islam?
It was due to Hindus being materialist( like they are now) and secular( in real terms as use of religion for politics is an alien idea apart from rituals) which explains their failure. People interpret others in their own image( I have often heard that muslims do not eat pork because pig is one of deities from normal hindus) and so this failure.
This failure is common to all non Abrahmic societies except Chinese. The Roman pagans could never understand the real threat of Christianity, they saw it as just another revolt against them, Berbers of NAfrica saw Muslims as yet another marauding force and so on.
The same way Ghurids did for Chauhans. Didn't the two share borders after all. You have to do it. If you don't, you're doomed
I have already explained it but please note that Sufi literature( authentic not modern day apologistic) mentions that they were there in heartland of Chahman kingdom. Did we have hindu monks acting as fifth coloumn in Ghor? Why Pak has more agents in India than India has in Pak?
Ideology does play important role. US in 1940s was having spies from Soviets, Soviets never suffered anything such as that.
I'm not saying nobody did it at all. But this was certainly a poor performing area, more so for the Kingdoms in north west.
A fragmented periphery isn't much better then no periphery
I do not want to be basher of my own ancestors but we performed poorly because of tribal structure of our polity not because we had no insight
Again, I haven't credited all the success of all the invaders to only the spying. There are factors that contribute and this was one of them. We didn't do it as fine as them.
We did not do as fine as them but because we lacked good states not that we were fools. If Burma loses against Thailand, it will be because of its less efficient state not because Burmese leaders do not have ideas
Now to the numbers. Indian Kingdoms raised huge armies by alliances to fight against Mahmud. Numbers were not a big issue
They did not. I doubt that alliance of all North Indian kings took place to help Jaipal as this evidence comes from Ferishta and not from other contemporaries of Mahmud. Ferishta has presented entire episode as one between Kufr and Islam and so he invented that all Hindus united but still they were defeated thus showing that one ghazi is equal to 10 Kaffirs.
Numbers were not that big issues when gap is not much but do you really think that Mahmud when he marched against Somnath was outnumbered by Solankis? It is almost impossible as he had 30,000 cavalry as well as freebooters and it is impossible for a tiny kingdom like Gujarat to match him by putting 50,000 men. Muslim authors have exaggerated numbers which are often ridiculous. Ottomans had just 1,50,000 troops in early sixteenth century and we are told that Rana Sanga who was ruling over smaller area( by many times) brought more than one lakh soldiers against Babur.
I am telling you a formula, if you know population of a region, take out 1 percent and you will get number of soldiers( not peasants armed at times of crisis) and by this benchmark, Mewar could not have put 1 lakh against Babur. The reason why we were defeated was because we did not outnumber muslims often. When we did,other factors operated
Yes the zeal was one factor and Mahmud was a brilliant General, just like Babur. He knew when to fight, where to fight, when to flee, what route to take for attack, what route for retreat etc
Mahmud was many times better than Babur who was a loser in his own homeland. Babur could not hold his own against Shaibani Khan an Uzbek, who himself was thrashed by Safavids who ruled Persia. Mahmud on other hand ruled from Caspian Sea to Lahore and easily defeated most of Islamic superpowers of that area.
He destroyed Samanids( Tajik dynasty) and also defeated Karakhanids who were noted as fierce warriors. If you ask any MidEastern about Tughril Beg, he would sing great glories( if he is Sunni) and the man captured Baghdad but same Tughril was thrashed by Ghazanavi and in the battle his Seljuk( this tribe changed character of Anatolia) turks were simply smashed. So long as Mahmud was alive, Seljuks did not dare attack Ghazanavids again.
Mahmud could defeat Hindu Sahis because Hindu Sahis were most unlucky to get such a great general as him as their deadly rival.
