Critique of India

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

J. B. Sharma wrote:

> 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.
....
> 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.

This is debatable. Spain was under Muslim rule for 500 years, but still
remained Christian (of course, Christians were more favoured than Hindus).
Even if Hindu culture hadn't been fragmented, it would probably have
survived. Of course, different degrees of fragmentation is found in all
societies, and to the extent that fragmentation is the a reason for India's
miseries, it is so because of its extent. My impression is that political
systems or states seem less stable in India than in Europe (off the cuff,
approximately 200 years seem to be the maximum extent for a state formation
in India), although Europe certainly has had a lot of wars and instability
- in this century, we have started two world wars. To check this out, we
would have to compile statistics on the duration of dynasties and the
stability of state formations in both areas. Here I feel rather
incompetent. Comments from others are invited.

> 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.

I agree that the discussion is worth-while, but I don't share the feeling
that we are defensive. So far, the arguments have been quite academic and
to the point from both sides. Comparing the effect of historical and
cultural forces is important, and we shouldn't be afraid of a bit of bias
on both sides. It is unavoidable and the only way to kill it is to get it
out in the open.

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