.Nice so that's your answer to my statement.Had no answer and had to resort to brahmins and idols as usual.
Now if u want an answer to reasons of turkish muslim armies success well here goes -
1)
Political atomisation of india - A major factor.Centralized states are able to mobilize much larger forces -especially in terms of numbers of elephants and horses which are expensive for the contemporary feudal rajput states to maintain.and posses unified decision making capability.Historically whenever india has been politically unified invaders have come to grief.(mauryas against greeks,guptas against huns,rashtarkuta-chalukya alliance against arabs).
2)
Lack of strategic vision - There was no unified strategic vision to impede the tide of invaders from the north west.Once the outer bastions of the subcontinent-kandahar,punjab and sindh fell there was no attempt to retake them.Thus once the natural barriers to the open gangetic plains were gone things became much easier for the cavalry based armies of the turk-afghans.After local successes rulers simply went back to their kingdoms and forgot about the threat.There was minimal co-operation between them.The only time there was co-operation on a large scale invaders were beaten back(battle of rajasthan).
Examples - After defeating ghuri's earlier attempt to invade gujarat the solanki king bhimdev did nothing when ghuri switched focus and turned to punjab.Thus punjab was allowed to become a powerbase and an entry point without any interference from either bhimdev or prithviraj.Another example ,after the first battle of tarain -with ghuri's whole force routed,lazy prithviraj didn't even bother to follow up his success and take punjab and secure his frontier.He simply went back to his capital.Ghuri was allowed to recover and rebuild.At second tarain,jaichand the second most powerful rajput ruler didn't aid prithviraj,only to be defeated later by ghori.
Another example - after crushing the arab threat at the battle of rajasthan,the pratiharas didn't bother to retake sindh from the arabs,even though their position was hopeless.Instead they spent the next 3 centuries in a bloddy attritional struggle with the palas of bengal and rashtrakutas of the deccan that broke apart all 3 empires.
Another example,when mahmud was devastating the smaller north indian states one by one,rajendra chola - emperor of south india and by then most powerful monarch on the continent was using his strength to invade the far east and sri lanka with his navy.When pleas for help came from these states,he ignored them,instead what does he do ?He invades bengal so that his soldiers can bring the supposedly holy water from the ganges in gold vessels for him to drink!
3)Decadent social structure - One of the main causes of defeat.The rigid caste system created divisions between the populace of the indian subcontinent.The top 2 classes were parasites who lived on the toils of the lower 2 castes and on top of that held them in total contempt.What this meant was that there was no popular resistance or people's war.The lower castes felt no attachment to wars as they had no stakes in them.They would be oppressed no matter who won.From here springs the popular medieval phrase -
''As long as the rains come in time,and the grain grows,who cares who reigns in delhi?''
Essentially the ruling classes were thus unable to mobilize their huge manpower pool due to the existing divisive social policies.As a result around 75-80% of the indian population didn't even participate in the contest.There was no people's war until shivaji started one in the deccan and aurangzeb accelerated it,that brought about the downfall of the mughal empire.
In contrast the invading turkish armies were of social equals more or less by the tenets of islam.(except the political hierachy)
4)Horse breeding in india - India doesn't produce good quality horses.This was a major military disadvantage in the age of cavalry against the invading armies which were mounted on the finest central asian and arabian breeds.
5)Advantage of the nomad/tribal over sedentiary societies in the middle ages before large scale use of gunpowder - The nomad had during the middle age two great advantages - Its was a born nation in arms -its entire male population could be mobilized for warfare.Secondly -they were born soldiers due to their way of life and required no training.In the steppes -archery required for hunting and horsemanship are natural actions drilled into every child from infancy.As it so happens during the middle ages these 2 were very useful military skills as well.So the military potential of a nomadic/tribal society is far superior to a sedentiary agriculturtal one before mass usage of gunpowder which wiped out the advantage of both archery and horse.Thus we see that during this era muslim turks advanced not only in india as u claim but everywhere.They overran the byzantine empire as well and penetrated into europe under the ottomans.The success of timur and genghis are also due to this.In the second battle of tarain ghori won the battle almost entirely due to the hit and run tactiocs of his horse archers which avoided physical contact and wore prithviraj's army down.Both first and second battles of panipat were won by horse-archery.Before gunpowder it was very difficult for non-steppe armies to defeat such tactics.
6)Religious zeal - Another factor.Many adventurers in the ranks of the invading armies fought both for faith and the lure of the wealth of india,with nowhere to go to if they lost.In contrast there is no concept of 'holy war' in hinduism so this trait was missing from the defenders.
7)Hidebound traditionalism and faulty military organization - Rajput military strategy believed in crushing rather than rapid hit and strike.In the age of the horse this put them at a disadvantage.Armed with swords they had serious problems facing archers who wouldn't close to melee range.They refused to adapt,placing complete faith in elephants even after continous difficulties against mounted horsemen.The element of mobility was totally absent from the Indian armies.For the invading armies,their provisions also were carried by fast trotting camels which required no fodder for themselves but fed on the roots and leaves of the way-side, while the Banjara pack-oxen of the Hindu commissariat were slow and burdensome.
8)The Rajputs looked upon a battle as a tournament in which they tried to show skill, bravery and chivalry. That was not the case with their enemies. They did not find themselves fettered by any rules of the game. They believed that all was fair in war. They were prepared to adopt any tactics which could bring them victory. They believed that end justifies the means and they did not care for the consequences of their actions.
They were prepared to defile a tank or a river from which their enemies got their water-supply. They were prepared to divert the course of a channel to stop the water-supply to the enemy and thereby bring about their surrender. They were prepared to destroy the whole of the neighbouring territory so that the enemy may be starved to submission.Rajputs would not do these,nor would they adapt.It was not until the marathas[who didn't care about honor-just victory]that things changed.
9)Technological inferiority - The technological inferiority was another major problem.The invaders had the turco-mongol composite bow -the deadliest weapon of the middle ages.Babur came with gunpowder weaponry and mughals throughout held a advantage in artillery.In the earlier turkish armies the mounted lancers equipped themselves with arm guards,mailed hauberks,metal helmets and even armoured their horses.In the rajput armies only the elite cavalry of the king and his retainers used heavy body armour and lances.Bulk of the armies were poorly equipped infantry,in an age where infantry was no match for cavalry.These were levies stemming from the fuedal system.Equipped with a loincloth,a turban and just a spear ,bamboo bow or straight sword.These were at a serious disadvantage against the heavily armoured lancer or the mounted horse archer with the composite bow.
10)One great defect of the Rajput military system was that they staked everything on the issue of a single battle. They did not make any distinction between a battle and a war.
If it was a question of defending a fort, they were prepared to ruin themselves while defending it.
If they failed to defend it, they died fighting to a man and their women burnt themselves to death. The result was that after one defeat, nothing was left. It has rightly been said that the Rajputs were notorious for turning a single military defeat in a catastrophe. They should have known that in a war it is sometimes politic to retreat and attack the enemy when the other party is weak.Contrast this with the marathas,whenever they were at a disadvantage they would simply flee and wait for a more oppurtune time.Aurangzeb would be forced into siege after futile siege,only to gain nothing from them as the martahs slipped away just before it fell.Then recaptured them with a surprise attack or treachery later.Meanwhile mughal army would exhausted by continous sieges and non stop guerilla attacks.In contrast rajputs would never retreat as that would be dishonorable and so on..The only time rana pratap did resort to such tactics he was succesful.Yet he had failed to repulse the huge mughal army at the battle of haldighati using head on tactics against an overwhleming force.It was foolish to face overwhelming enemy power head on,but rajputs were oblivious to this fact.
