Critique of India

[l.m.fosse at easteur-orient.uio.no]

>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?

Prof. Aklujkar writes:

>One must distinguish between the political and economic unity of India, on
>the one hand, and the cultural unity, on the other. The latter seems to
>antedate the former by about 1800-1900 years. India as a nation should not
>be projected back in time.  Nor should the so-called ancient Indian empires
>be understood with the present  Western image of an empire at the back of
>one's mind.

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.

>Invaders of India (or rather the constituents of what we now call India)
>seem to have been repelled more or less successfully until significant
>shifts in technology occurred and led to invaders adopting unfamiliar
>military-political machineriess and ideologies. So, perhaps, the  questions
>should be: Why were parts of India not the first to initiate certain
>changes in military technology? Why did the border regions of India not
>catch on fast enough to the changes that occurred among their neighbours?

These are certainly important points. But it seems that India - or parts of
the country - were always occupied by foreigners in periods when the
various Northern kingdoms that could have stood as a bulwark against
intruders were seriously weakened. That was certainly the case when the
Brits took over. It would therefore seem that internal political and social
processes were just as important as changes *outside* India. The Mogul
empire could never have been brought down in the times of Akbar and his
nearest successors. In the 18th century it fell like a ripe fruit into the
hands of a bunch of merchants after serious wars between Moguls and
Marathas. The lesson would seem to be that the fragmentary processes of the
subcontinent carry a great deal of the responsibility for the misery of
India.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse



Lars Martin Fosse
Research Fellow
Department of East European
and Oriental Studies
P. O. Box 1030, Blindern
N-0315 OSLO Norway

Tel: +47 22 85 68 48
Fax: +47 22 85 41 40

E-mail: l.m.fosse at easteur-orient.uio.no