Why didn’t the Hindus of India ever defeat an invading army!

[M. Sarmad]

Trying to bring a syncretic religion only points to his religious impartiality. He did not convert but remained a muslim.
There was another great Muslim ruler although he reigned only for 5 years - Sher Shah Suri.
He did lot of good work in those 5 years.


Aryan invasion theory is a myth propagated by British to divide and rule North and South India.

The Arya/Mleccha and other divides are deeply rooted in Vedas, it's not a British invention (but an interpretation rather). But that's not the topic of discussion here. Many threads on it already.

Yes, Sher Shah Suri was a great administrator, perhaps the greatest of them all, succeeded by Akbar who followed Sher Shah's administrative policies. But most of the Indians don't know much about him and those who know have divided opinion. They accuse him of massacring Hindus, esp in Raisin

 

[magra]

The Arya/Mleccha and other divides are deeply rooted in Vedas, it's not a British invention (but an interpretation rather). But that's not the topic of discussion here. Many threads on it already.

Yes, Sher Shah Suri was a great administrator, perhaps the greatest of them all, succeeded by Akbar who followed Sher Shah's administrative policies. But most of the Indians don't know much about him and those who know have divided opinion. They accuse him of massacring Hindus, esp in Raisin

I did not hear any Indian negatively commenting on Sher Shah Suri. I agree most Indians know little about him other than the fact that he built the Grand Trunk Road.

 

[SIPRA]

The Arya/Mleccha and other divides are deeply rooted in Vedas, it's not a British invention (but an interpretation rather). But that's not the topic of discussion here. Many threads on it already.

Yes, Sher Shah Suri was a great administrator, perhaps the greatest of them all, succeeded by Akbar who followed Sher Shah's administrative policies. But most of the Indians don't know much about him and those who know have divided opinion. They accuse him of massacring Hindus, esp in Raisin

Many of them also accuse Akbar of destructing temples and massacring Hindus. "Yeh sub aik he thaeli kay chattay battay haen."

 

[magra]

Many of them also accuse Akbar of destructing temples and massacring Hindus. "Yeh sub aik he thaeli kay chattay battay haen."

Who does? I do not think Akbar destroyed any temples or specifically killed Hindus as a matter of policy. He had high ranking Hindu ministers and generals.

 

[Maula Jatt]

So, we agree.. India and then Pakistan

As for homegrown empire vs foreign invasion, that means different things to the inhabitants of different countries/regions in India

A Bihar based empire conquering Punjab is an invasion for Punjabis (and vice versa)

Pashtuns are an inalienable and integral part of Pakistani identity. Abdali, Ghouri, Ghaznavi etc were Pashtuns. So their empires were as much 'homegrown' for Pakistanis as Mauryan empire is for you guys

Punjab nationalist in me

but lets let it slide for the good of the nation...

 

[SIPRA]

Who does? I do not think Akbar destroyed any temples or specifically killed Hindus as a matter of policy. He had high ranking Hindu ministers and generals.

I read a few posts, by some Indian posters, but I don't recall the posters id, or the thread titile. I have heard such kind of things, many times, on Indian channels, as well.

But, as I told you earlier that I am least interested in ancient or medeival history, at least, for the purpose of its translation, to the present. What Ghaznavi, or Raja Jaipal, or Ghori, or Prithivi Raj Chohan, or Alamgir, or Shivaji, or Ranjeet Singh, did or didn't, doesn't concern me, and is irrelevant, as far as the current issues are concerned.

 

[magra]

I read a few posts, by some Indian posters, but I don't recall the posters id, or the thread titile. I have heard such kind of things, many times, on Indian channels, as well.

But, as I told you earlier that I am least interested in ancient or medeival history, at least, for the purpose of its translation, to the present. What Ghaznavi, or Raja Jaipal, or Ghori, or Prithivi Raj Chohan, or Alamgir, or Shivaji, or Ranjeet Singh, did or didn't, doesn't concern me, and is irrelevant, as far as the current issues are concerned.

If history is irrelevant to you, then why are you even replying on this thread.

 

[SIPRA]

If history is irrelevant to you, then why are you even replying on this thread.

Read my comments again. I have not indulged into the hisoricity or accuracy of any claims, made by anyone, on this thread. As I told you, that this reading of medeival history, partly true, partly unsubstantiated, and partly straightaway fabrication, has lead to disastrous consequences, for the subcontinent, in current times and this tide is not subsiding. People carry psychological burden of the past, which starts shaping their current attitude and behavior.

 

[CatSultan]

The bulk of fighting almost every time was concentrated in current day Pakistan. Invading armies found it difficult to invade further hence the south India mostly remained safe because of war fatigue of invading armies.

The Hephthalites failed
The Arabs failed
The Greeks failed

Only the British, Mughals and Delhi Sultanate had any major conquests, and the latter two were heavily dependant upon Indian support (not even just from Muslims btw, even if that was the primary source as far as higher positions were concerned)

This "India has always been conquered" meme is exactly that, a meme. It applies more to Afghanistan and Iran than the sub-continent.

What about the Ghaznavids and the Mamluks

What crap! Have you ever tasted Chinese food? Its quite bland, whereas Indian food is always known to be spicy.

You must be eating the Chinese food they make here in the US. Just like with Indian food they remove the spices to appeal to the wider population.

 

[Vapnope]

What about the Ghaznavids and the Mamluks

Both dynasties couldn't capture all of India. Tughluq dynasty had more area conquered than both.

 

[Chris Logan]

India is a sedentary civilization, eating grains and lentils. the Mongols ate raw meat and were in better shape. war simply wasn't a part of the culture due to sheer geography. Also, the caste system didn't select for meritocracy, thus fostering a stagnant inept military.

The same shit happened to the Chinese and the Mongols.

India is a sedentary civilization, eating grains and lentils. the Mongols ate raw meat and were in better shape. war simply wasn't a part of the culture due to sheer geography. Also, the caste system didn't select for meritocracy, thus fostering a stagnant inept military.

The same shit happened to the Chinese and the Mongols.

furthermore, the Pakistanis are a derivative of the same sedentary culture, you can say all you want about how you guys were the descendant's conquerers, sure even if that is true, nobody wants to live rough and tumble, there is comfort in being sedentary.

 

[mumairb]

The fact that India has always been a multi-ethnic region and never a country before, most of the state rulers never bothered helping other small kingdoms within the India being invaded from the Khyber pass.

Also they had better resources, access to best farm land in the world and were surrounded by neighbors with harsh conditions which made them better soldiers, remember vikings who invaded saxxons and northrumbia many times because they were rich and also easy for them to loot.

Also, India itself was a complex region to rule therefore we have never seen any Indian ruler who felt the need to invade other countries like Iran, or central asia which had tougher terrain and also had little to offer the Indian invaders...

Although one thing that Mughals, and later Maratha's and Sikh failed to do was built a navy which could have saved India from British Invasion.

Someone here mentioned that an Indian ruler managed to beat the Greeks, but that's not the case as Greco-bacterian and Indo Greek weren't the same people anymore that came with Alexander as they adopted Buddhism and the local customs.

 

[CatSultan]

furthermore, the Pakistanis are a derivative of the same sedentary culture, you can say all you want about how you guys were the descendant's conquerers, sure even if that is true, nobody wants to live rough and tumble, there is comfort in being sedentary.

yeah but we ate meat

 

[MH.Yang]

India is a sedentary civilization, eating grains and lentils. the Mongols ate raw meat and were in better shape. war simply wasn't a part of the culture due to sheer geography. Also, the caste system didn't select for meritocracy, thus fostering a stagnant inept military.

The same shit happened to the Chinese and the Mongols.



furthermore, the Pakistanis are a derivative of the same sedentary culture, you can say all you want about how you guys were the descendant's conquerers, sure even if that is true, nobody wants to live rough and tumble, there is comfort in being sedentary.

Farming civilization is far stronger than nomads.
Yes, the Mongols did rule China for 89 years, but do you know how many nomads were exterminated by the Chinese? There are more than 5000 ethnic groups with historical records alone.

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Caste system is the major reason IMO.