Critique of India

[J.B. Sharma]

>On 16 Aug 1995, Lars Martin Fosse asked an important question:  <If an area
>the size of India is repetedly robbed blind by
>outsiders, why is it unable to defend itself?


 Furthermore in respose to a note by Prof Aklujkar he wrote :
 
This is certainly correct. But even if we do not project backwards the
political unity that obtains today, we are still faced with areas that were
large enough and richt enough to fend for themselves - or should have been
so. E.g.: the Mauryas and the Guptas. If I remember correctly, the famous
Prthiviraja also once managed to repel an invasion with a coalition of
North-Indian rajas. I think he failed the second time.

___________________

 One of the reasons of the fall of India to the Turks was the Rajput 
code of chivalry which Muhammad of Ghor and his slave turkish cavalry 
did not share. If I remember correctly from Akbar-Nama, Prithviraj 
Chauhan had defeated Muhammad Ghori more than half a dozen times. In 
one instance he had captured him, but let him go as an act of 
magnanimity of the victor. In the conclusive battle in 1192 AD, 
Prithviraj went very reluctantly cutting short his honeymoon with only 
12000 men, and Muhammad Ghori upon victory tortured him and put him 
to death. The carnage that followed has made Heinrich Zimmer note 
that there are virtually no ancient Hindu temples/architecture left 
in the North of India. Alas, India had no Charles Martel. 
 The inherently fragmented nature of Hindu society of course 
catalyzed the process of downfall, but equally significant is the 
ruthlessness and mass atrocity which is an imperative of conquerers 
initially small in number.
 This downfall took several centuries to happen (712 AD- Sind, ~900 
AD Peshawer, 1192 AD Delhi etc), and besides the Turkish double 
rimmed bow and fast central asian horses there was a theological 
sanction to destroy the idolator infidels culture and convert them 
to the right way of doing things. 
 As to why India was unable to defend itself; It is for the same 
reason that Russia, China, Persia and Eastern Europe were helpless in 
the face of the Mongol hordes, even though they were much smaller in 
number.
 The fragmentation of Hindu society, which is aginst the grain of 
West where egalitarianism is prized, also remains one of the reasons 
the ancient Hindu culture survived a slow genocide over centuries. In 
the case of Persia or Egypt, the old culture is mainly relagated to 
academic discussion.
 I think that this is a very worthwhile discussion even though there 
is a little defensiveness from both sides. The original thread and the 
subsequent sub-threads raise important issue of historical forces 
have shaped contemporary Indian culture and how it percieves and is 
percieved by the Western paradigm.  I do think that both the East and 
West have a lot to learn from each other. 
Regards, 
J.B. Sharma
Assoc Prof of Physics