Why the Rajputs failed miserably in battle for centuries

[kdsingh80]

Quote

The home minister, Rajnath Singh, wishes our school textbooks told us more about the Rajput king Rana Pratap, and less about the Mughal emperor Akbar. I, on the other hand, wish they explained why Rajputs fared so miserably on the battlefield.

A thousand years ago, Rajput kings ruled much of North India. Then they lost to Ghazni, lost to Ghuri, lost to Khilji, lost to Babur, lost to Akbar, lost to the Marathas, and keeled over before the British. The Marathas and Brits hardly count since the Rajputs were a spent force by the time Akbar was done with them. Having been confined to an arid part of the subcontinent by the early Sultans, they were reduced to vassals by the Mughals.

The three most famous Rajput heroes not only took a beating in crucial engagements, but also retreated from the field of battle. Prithviraj Chauhan was captured while bolting and executed after the second battle of Tarain in 1192 CE, while Rana Sanga got away after losing to Babur at Khanua in 1527, as did Rana Pratap after the battle of Haldighati in 1576. To compensate for, or explain away, these debacles, the bards of Rajputana replaced history with legend.

Specialists in failure

It is worth asking, surely, what made Rajputs such specialists in failure. Yet, the question hardly ever comes up. When it does, the usual explanation is that the Rajputs faced Muslim invaders whose fanaticism was their strength. Nothing could be further than the truth. Muslim rulers did use the language of faith to energise their troops, but commitment is only the first step to victory. The Rajputs themselves never lacked commitment, and their courage invariably drew the praise of their enemies. Even a historian as fundamentalist as Badayuni rhapsodised about Rajput valour. Babur wrote that his troops were unnerved, ahead of the Khanua engagement, by the reputed fierceness of Rana Sanga’s forces, their willingness to fight to the death.

Let’s cancel out courage and fanaticism as explanations, then, for each side displayed these in equal measure. What remains is discipline, technical and technological prowess, and tactical acumen. In each of these departments, the Rajputs were found wanting. Their opponents, usually Turkic, used a complex battle plan involving up to five different divisions. Fleet, mounted archers would harry opponents at the start, and often make a strategic retreat, inducing their enemy to charge into an ambush. Behind these stood the central division and two flanks. While the centre absorbed the brunt of the enemy’s thrust, the flanks would wheel around to surround and hem in opponents. Finally, there was a reserve that could be pressed into action wherever necessary. Communication channels between divisions were quick and answered to a clear hierarchy that was based largely on merit.

Contrast this with the Rajput system, which was simple, predictable, and profoundly foolish, consisting of a headlong attack with no Plan B. In campaigns against forces that had come through the Khyber Pass, Rajputs usually had a massive numerical advantage. Prithviraj’s troops outnumbered Ghuri’s at the second battle of Tarain by perhaps three to one. At Khanua, Rana Sanga commanded at least four soldiers for every one available to Babur. Unlike Sanga’s forces, though, Babur’s were hardy veterans. After defeating Ibrahim Lodi at Panipat, the founder of the Mughal dynasty had the option of using the generals he inherited from the Delhi Sultan, but preferred to stick with soldiers he trusted. He knew numbers are meaningless except when acting on a coherent strategy under a unified command. Rajput troops rarely answered to one leader, because each member of the confederacy would have his own prestige and ego to uphold. Caste considerations made meritocracy impossible. The enemy general might be a freed Abyssinian slave, but Rajput leadership was decided by clan membership.

Absent meritocratic promotion, an established chain of command, a good communication system, and a contingency plan, Rajput forces were regularly taken apart by the opposition’s mobile cavalry. Occasionally, as with the composite bows and light armour of Ghuri’s horsemen, or the matchlocks employed by Babur, technological advances played a role in the outcome.

Ossified tactics

What’s astonishing is that centuries of being out-thought and out-manoeuvred had no impact on the Rajput approach to war. Rana Pratap used precisely the same full frontal attack at Haldighati in 1576 that had failed so often before. Haldighati was a minor clash by the standards of Tarain and Khanua. Pratap was at the head of perhaps 3,000 men and faced about 5,000 Mughal troops. The encounter was far from the Hindu Rajput versus Muslim confrontation it is often made out to be. Rana Pratap had on his side a force of Bhil archers, as well as the assistance of Hakim Shah of the Sur clan, which had ruled North India before Akbar’s rise to power. Man Singh, a Rajput who had accepted Akbar’s suzerainty and adopted the Turko-Mongol battle plan led the Mughal troops. Though Pratap’s continued rebellion following his defeat at Haldighati was admirable in many ways, he was never anything more than an annoyance to the Mughal army. That he is now placed, in the minds of many Indians, on par with Akbar or on a higher plane says much about the twisted communal politics of the subcontinent.

There’s one other factor that is thought to have contributed substantially to Rajput defeats: the opium habit. Taking opium was established practice among Rajputs in any case, but they considerably upped the quantity they consumed when going into battle. Several ended up in no fit state to process any instruction beyond, “kill or be killed”. Opium rendered some soldiers incapable of coordinating complex manoeuvres. There’s an apt warning for school kids: don’t do drugs, or you’ll squander an empire. 

http://scroll.in/bulletins/3/the-incredible-engineering-that-can-save-your-life-in-a-car-crash

Interesting read , Scholars of ICF what was use to battle strategy of Sikhs after they gained some number? The first if I am not wrong was ambushing

[Guest Jungchamkaur]

I can't believe you think this excerpt is historically and ontologically accurate... wow. What a joke lol. The author is just as stupid as the poster. Rajput history is reduced to maharana pratap and akbar...and raja maan Singh... wow. Sheer stupidity I'm baffled. 

[kdsingh80]

On 5/31/2016 at 2:14 PM, Guest Jungchamkaur said:

I can't believe you think this excerpt is historically and ontologically accurate... wow. What a joke lol. The author is just as stupid as the poster. Rajput history is reduced to maharana pratap and akbar...and raja maan Singh... wow. Sheer stupidity I'm baffled. 

All you can do is abuse. The articles clearly mention battle strategies of Rajputs and others, clearly invaders were winners in it

[dalsingh101]

Quote

Caste considerations made meritocracy impossible. The enemy general might be a freed Abyssinian slave, but Rajput leadership was decided by clan membership.

This is what Guru Gobind Singh ji changed. He brought in a meritocracy. That's why you subsequently had jut, kalal, tarkhan etc. etc. military leadership amongst Sikhs - with conspicuous success. 

That this has been corrupted into some disastrous peasant hegemony today is another matter altogether and the result of a deviation of true Sikh precedents reverting back to the above bull5hit.

 

[BhagatSingh]

33 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

This is what Guru Gobind Singh ji changed. He brought in a meritocracy. That's why you subsequently had jut, kalal, tarkhan etc. etc. military leadership amongst Sikhs - with conspicuous success. 

This is a biased article foo!

It's like saying, "Sikhs lost all their battles and they did so because of backwardness and caste-ism. They also had shitty battle formations and displayed tremendous stupidity on the battlefield."

The article is so far off, it's not even a funny exaggeration.

1 hour ago, kdsingh80 said:

All you can do is abuse. The articles clearly mention battle strategies of Rajputs and others, clearly invaders were winners in it

Bhaji if you are serious about this topic, go read some proper books on Rajput history.

On 2016-05-31 at 4:44 AM, Guest Jungchamkaur said:

I can't believe you think this excerpt is historically and ontologically accurate... wow. What a joke lol. The author is just as stupid as the poster. Rajput history is reduced to maharana pratap and akbar...and raja maan Singh... wow. Sheer stupidity I'm baffled. 

^ This!

[dalsingh101]

Quote

 

This is a biased article foo!

It's like saying, "Sikhs lost all their battles and they did so because of backwardness and caste-ism. They also had shitty battle formations and displayed tremendous stupidity on the battlefield."

The article is so far off, it's not even a funny exaggeration.

 

It's not half as bad as your horse5hit about all the panj piaray being 'khatris' or 'rajputs' or whatever.

By the time the Moghuls popped up, traditional Indic societal organisation didn't serve its intended purpose. The ruling classes were frequently taking it up the ar5e from foreigners and the so-called 'warrior-caste' regularly failed to protect successfully, many even reducing themselves to colluding with the invaders against their own kind. I mean how many times can people excuse away getting defeated on your own home territory again and again. First getting shafted by Moghuls and Afghans for God knows how long, then the Brishits. Over hundreds of years too. What a bunch of losers. 

But before any Sikhs get uppity we should recall how our own lot climbed up anglo ar5e like rectal parasites after being invaded. 

[BhagatSingh]

46 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

It's not half as bad as your horse5hit about all the panj piaray being 'khatris' or 'rajputs' or whatever.

I don't know if they were specifically Rajput, but the Panj Pyarey were all from Kshatriya clans. You are just being intentionally blind to these facts. You can do better.

[kdsingh80]

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

This is a biased article foo!

It's like saying, "Sikhs lost all their battles and they did so because of backwardness and caste-ism. They also had shitty battle formations and displayed tremendous stupidity on the battlefield."

I don't have problem reading that sikhs lost the battle because of casteism , if there is element of truth in that

 

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

Bhaji if you are serious about this topic, go read some proper books on Rajput history.

I have read and will read , but the fact remain Rajputs lost against muslim invaders , this fact is not going to be changed.Mughals too lost in 18th century badly but I have not seen muslims getting angry on that .Rajputs had Glorious history and they managed to kept islam out of India upto Ghaznavi , but after that they lost , which is fact and that is not going to change

[dalsingh101]

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

I don't know if they were specifically Rajput, but the Panj Pyarey were all from Kshatriya clans. You are just being intentionally blind to these facts. You can do better.

What's really interesting is how you've convinced yourself of your own horseshit. Despite it being such a patent load of bollocks that no one has even ever claimed it before. Loads of Sikh texts (even old ones)  speak of the 'merging of 4 varans' with the event of the Khalsa but you go make this crap up to get around the failure of Ksyhatriya society to do what they were apparently created for. 

Leave that active imagination in the field of art mate, it doesn't work with history.

 

Stick to what you're good at. 

[BhagatSingh]

25 minutes ago, kdsingh80 said:

I don't have problem reading that sikhs lost the battle because of casteism , if there is element of truth in that

Nobody loses battles because of caste. It's a shitty idea to begin with.

Quote

I have read and will read , but the fact remain Rajputs lost against muslim invaders , this fact is not going to be changed.Mughals too lost in 18th century badly but I have not seen muslims getting angry on that .Rajputs had Glorious history and they managed to kept islam out of India upto Ghaznavi , but after that they lost , which is fact and that is not going to change

Did you really need to read this garbage to learn that Rajputs lost battles to the Mughals?

Btw it wasn't just Rajputs who lost battles to Mughals. Other Muslim rulers of the time also lost battle to the Mughals. This is how we lost India to the Mughals in the first place. It wasn't the Rajputs, it was other Muslims that Mughals were fighting at the start.

Ibrahim Lodi, an Afghani and Muslim ruler, who was ruling India (around the time when Guru Nanak was running the modi khana), he lost Delhi to Babur, despite having an advantage in numbers and elephants.

[kdsingh80]

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

Nobody loses battles because of caste. It's a shitty idea to begin with.

If there are  2 societies with 100 people each , A and B . Society A only allow its warrior caste whose numbers are 20 people to fight , while the society B just accept anybody on the basis of merit. One don't need rocket science to accept that in conflict Society B has huge advantage

 

1 hour ago, BhagatSingh said:

Did you really need to read this garbage to learn that Rajputs lost battles to the Mughals?

Btw it wasn't just Rajputs who lost battles to Mughals. Other Muslim rulers of the time also lost battle to the Mughals. This is how we lost India to the Mughals in the first place. It wasn't the Rajputs, it was other Muslims that Mughals were fighting at the start.

Ibrahim Lodi, an Afghani and Muslim ruler, who was ruling India (around the time when Guru Nanak was running the modi khana), he lost Delhi to Babur, despite having an advantage in numbers and elephants.

So I will willingly read why those muslim rulers lost , what's wrong in analsys. One point that comes in my mind is that India always made people more Araam pasand rather keeping upto date with war strategies and innovations

[BhagatSingh]

1 hour ago, kdsingh80 said:

If there are  2 societies with 100 people each , A and B . Society A only allow its warrior caste whose numbers are 20 people to fight , while the society B just accept anybody on the basis of merit. One don't need rocket science to accept that in conflict Society B has huge advantage

My reply to this is too long to post here and it's off-topic. So new thread below. Go read it. I await your response.

 

Quote

So I will willingly read why those muslim rulers lost , what's wrong in analsys. One point that comes in my mind is that India always made people more Araam pasand rather keeping upto date with war strategies and innovations

Maybe but sometimes wars were won because one general outsmarted the other or had superior technology.

Babur funneled Lodi's elephants through a narrow passage and blew them up with his superior artillery and severed Lodi's numbers and elephant advantage.

Sometimes weather and environmental conditions win wars.

Alexander defeated Purushotam not because he was better but because at that time of battle, it rained heavily. Purushotam had already arrived with his chariots and elephants, who along with the mounted archers were the core of his army. both his chariots and elephants failed to operate in the thick mud. Long story short, Alexander kicked his ass because the core of Purushotam's army could not function on that new rain-created terrain.

[Guest guest]

I agree the original article is garbage.  saying they 'failed miserably' is bullshit.

some sold out.  so what?  What about all the ones that persevered, and maintained their culture and dignity right up to 20th century.  

moguls never 'conquered' india, they were insecure on their hold the whole way through, hence all the violence.  

[Koi]

8 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

I don't know if they were specifically Rajput, but the Panj Pyarey were all from Kshatriya clans. You are just being intentionally blind to these facts. You can do better.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? 

Any credible sources to back that up?

[BhagatSingh]

@Koi
It actually really simple.

Back then certain names were exclusive to certain castes. This is still true nowadays to a some extent

For example, we know Mangal Pandey is from a Brahmin clan, we know this because the surname - Pandey - that is unique to Brahmin community. Now Pandey is easy to see - it means Pandit. I give this example specifically because it is easy to see how such a name would not be used by non-pandit clans.

So point is different clans kept different names to make themselves distinct.

The original surnames of our Panj Pyarey - Das, Ram, Chand - indicate that they belonged to Kshatriya clans but were involved with different professions at the time.

[kdsingh80]

Quote

Causes of Muslim Success and Rajput Failure in India

PRAGATI SEN

Advertisements:

 

---

Considering the fact that the Rajputs were great warriors, it seems a little strange that they were defeated by the Muslims. Habibullah admits that in individal fighting, the Rajput surpassed the Turks. The view of Elphinstone, Lane-Poole and V. A. Smith was that the success of the Muslims was due to the fact that they came from cold climate and were non vegetarians. That view is no longer accepted.

The soldierly qualities of the Hindus are admitted even by their enemies and consequently that could not be a factor responsible for their failure. It is also not true that non-vegetarians are better fighters than the vegetarians. Moreover, there were a large number of Hindus who were non-vegetarians at the time when the Hindus and Muslims fought against one another. The real causes must be found somewhere else.

(1) A very important cause of Muslim success and Hindu failure was the lack of political unity in the country. There was no one paramount power in the country at that time which could fight against the Muslims. India at that time was a congeries of states. Various parts of the country were ruled by individual rulers. There were mutual jealousies and dissensions among the Rajput Chiefs. It is true that the Rajputs were good warriors but there was too much of a clannish spirit among them.

The Rajput soldiers owed their allegiance to their petty chief and were prepared to fight against other Rajput soldiers under another Rajput Chief. It was in this way that they frittered away their energy. There was no national consciousness among them. The various Rajput princes could not and did not think in terms of India as a whole. They were not prepared to sink their differences in the higher interests of the country and put up a united front against the Muslim invaders. The result was that they were defeated one by one and all their bravery was of no avail.

(2) The military organization of the Rajputs was defective and could not succeed against the Muslims. The Rajput armies were ill-organized and ill-equipped. The trouble with the Hindus was that they were satisfied with what they had. They did not try to keep themselves in touch with the latest developments in military organization and methods of fighting. The result was that they were defeated by the Muslims who were ahead of them in these matters.

The Indians divided their armies into three parts; the right, centre and the left. They almost invariably made a frontal attack on the enemy. The Muslim armies, on the other hand, were divided into five parts. In addition to the right centre and left, they had the Advance Guard and the Reserve. The Reserve was always ready to come to the help of any part of the army which was in difficulty or to give the final blow when the enemy was about to collapse. Moreover, the Hindus put too much reliance on elephants. These "mountain-like elephants" could not stand against the mobile Turkish cavalry.

Once the elephants were frightened, they trampled their own men under their feet and thus proved themselves to be a greater than an asset. The Rajputs fought mainly with their swords while the Muslims were good archers. The Muslims archers from their horses were more than a match for the Rajputs who fought with their swords.

Prof. K. A. Nizami rightly points out that mobility was the key-note of Turkish military organisation at that time. It was the age of the horse. A well-equipped cavalry with tremendous mobility was the great need of the time. Indian military strategy gave greater importance to weight than to mobility. The Rajputs believed in crushing rather than moving rapidly and striking. When the Indian armies headed by elephants came into the battle-field, they were bound to be defeated by swift and easy-moving cavalry of the Muslims.

Sir Jadunath Sarkar also points out that the element of mobility was totally absent from the Indian armies. To quote him, "The arms and horses of these trans-border invaders gave them indisputable military superiority over the Indians. 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."

(3) 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.

They were always ready to resort to shock-tactics to dishearten and demoralize their enemies. With lightning speed, they fell upon the people and destroyed them with fire and sword. They did this so often that an impression was created that it was impossible to face the Muslims successfully.

(4) Habibullah points out that 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. Lloyd George used to say that while others won battles, he won the war. Unfortunately, the Rajputs could not think in terms of a defeat. 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.

(5) Another defect in the Rajput military system was that they did not take the offensive against their enemies. To quote Habibullah, "Rarely did the Hindu princes take the offensive, but they bestirred themselves only when the enemy appeared before the strong-hold." Obviously, this is not the way of winning victory. A policy of defense alone does not help. A defensive policy has to be coupled with an offensive policy. As that was not done by the Rajputs, their people suffered terribly on account of the Muslim invasions.

(6) Dr. Iswari Prasad maintains that the wars between the Rajputs and the Muslims were "a struggle between two different social systems, the one old and decadent and the other full of youthful vigor and enterprise." The Hindus were divided into many castes. These castes created pride and prejudices. They also created inequality in society. The result was that all the Hindus could not pool their resources against the foreigners. Moreover, out of the four castes the work of fighting was left to only one caste. The people of the three other castes thought that they had nothing to do with the defense of the country and they seemed to be indifferent towards the same.

The result was that about three-fourths of the people of India did not fight against the foreigners. Obviously, the rest of the one-fourth of the population could not be expected to fight against the enemy successfully. Islam is a great brotherhood and this equality among the Muslims was a great I asset in their fight against the Hindus. Equality among Muslims brought unity among them and I they fought shoulder to shoulder against their enemies. It has rightly been said that while the I Hindus had no ideology before them to fight for, the Muslims certainly had one.

They came to India with the fanatical zeal of crusaders. All their fight against the Hindus was a Jihad. They were convinced that if they won, they would become Ghazis and if they died fighting, they would go to Bahisht, or paradise and also get the honours of a Shahid or martyr. It is these beliefs that "led | even the commonest Musalmans to brave risks and cheerfully make sacrifices." It was with this spirit that the Muslim soldiers, with the cries of Allah-hu-Akbar, were able to defeat the Rajputs. The cries of Har Har Mahadeva of the Hindus were not strong enough to stop the Muslims.

Prof. K. A. Nizami also holds a similar view. According to him, the real causes of the defeat of the Indians lay in their social system and the invidious caste distinctions which rendered the whole military organisation rickety and weak. The caste taboos and discriminations killed all sense of unity. Even religion was the monopoly of a particular section and a majority of the Indians were not allowed to see the inside of a high-caste Indian temple. For the bulk of the people of India, there was hardly anything which could evoke patriotic responses in them when face to face with the Ghurid invaders. They watched with indifference the fate of the Indian governing classes.

No wonder, the towns fell like ripe fruits. Only the forts put up some resistance but they became helpless when the enemy controlled the country-side. If the Indian governing classes had succeeded in enlisting the support of the masses for their defense plans, these forts and fortresses would have served as a fortified base of a very dynamic character by linking up all their striking force to a single state-centre.

However, under the existing social circumstances, these forts became a futile defense and could not protect even their own areas. The casts system played havoc with the military efficiency of the Rajput States. As fighting was the profession of a group, recruitment was confined to particular tribes or castes. The bulk of the population was excluded from military training. The idea of physical pollution made the division of labour impossible among the soldiers. The result was that the same person had to perform all sorts of work-from fighting to fetching of water.

According to P. Saran, "The Post-Gupta period in India was marked by the rise and ascendency of the aristocratic, irrational and exclusive Brahmanism as a result of the reaction which took place against the otherwise democratic and rational but then degenerate Buddhism giving birth to a new ideology in religion which slowly but imperceptibly crept over the social body of Hinduism.

This was the ideology of exclusivist, isolation and planned obedience of the monopolists of sacerdotal authority. It was this ideology that rendered the Indian society and its rulers incapable of defending their frontiers and killed its vitality of assimilating the new-comers."

(7) Another cause was the failure on the part of the Hindus to realise the implications of the invasions of the Muslims. Their view was that the Turks were like the Sakas, Kushanas and the Hunas. They believed that the Turks would be contented with extending their control over the Punjab alone and not carry their power into the very heart of India.

It was this misunderstanding or wrong conclusion which was responsible for their not taking the Muslim invasions seriously. They ought to have realised the gravity of the situation and marshalled all their resources to meet the enemy. As they did not do so, their failure could be anticipated.

Muhammad Ghori or Muhammad of Ghur

(8) Another cause of the failure of the Hinuds was their general attitude towards others and their own lives. Alberuni tells us that "the Indians believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no king like theirs, no religion liek theirs, no science like theirs.... They are by nature niggardly in communicating what they know and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste, from among their own people, still more of course from any foreigner."

This wrong estimate of themselves blinded the Hindus and they assumed a false sense of superiority which ultimately proved their ruin. Alberuni also tells us that "they (the Hindus) are in a state of confusion, devoid in logical order and in the last instance always mixed up with silly notions of the crowd. I can only compare their mathematical and astronomical knowledge to a mixture of pearls and sour dates, or of pearls and dung, or of costly crystals and common pebbles.

Both kinds of things are equal in their eyes since they cannot raise themselves to the methods of a strictly scientific deduction." Such people could not stand against the Muslims who came to India as crusaders for their religion and also hoped to get a lot of money and gold.

(9) Another cause of Muslim success was their slave system. Lane-Poole observes: "While a brilliant father's son is apt to be a failure, the slaves of a real leader of men have often proved the equals of their master." The Muslim rulers had a large number of slaves and they were given high positions on the basis of their merit.

The result was that these slaves helped their masters to build up an empire in this country. It is these slaves who were responsible for conquering various parts of this country while their masters were busy otherwise. Examples of such slaves were Qutb-'' ud-Din Aibak, Iltutmish and Balban.

(10) Critics point out that the blunders of the Indian rulers also helped the Muslims to win. It is true that Jayapala was defeated by Subuktgin and Mahmud but instead of burning himself on a funeral pyre, he should have gone to fight against the enemies and defeated them. It is no part of bravery to kill oneself if one is defeated by the enemy. Raja Dahir of Sindh also made a similar mistake. He should not have gone to fight as an ordinary soldier in the battle.

Like a General, he should have directed the army and not himself become the target of the enemy. The result was that although he was able to establish his reputation as a soldier, he lost the war by allowing himself to be made the target by the enemy. Similar blunders were committed by other Hindu rulers which facilitated the task of conquest of India by the Muslims.

(11) Dr. Buddha Prakash says that the verdict which the historian has to return on the fall of Hindu India is one of suicide rather than murder. According to him, the hand which crippled the nation was its own. In this connection he refers to the rivalry between the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Buddhist monks did not hesitate even to help the Muslim invaders against the Hindus.

He also refers to the burning of the Buddhist library of Nalanda by Hindu fanatics. He also refers to the abduction of Samyogta, daughter of Jaichandra of Kanauj, by Prithviraj and the estrangement of relations between the two rulers and their failure to act together against a common enemy.

Dr. Tarachand points out that an interval of 175 years separated the sack of Somnath by Mahmud and the battle of Tarain which sealed the fate of Hindu India, but the doom was self inflicted. There were warnings of the impending crisis and the Indians had enough time in which they could have set their house in order. However, the Rajahs did not bother and they continued the merry game of toppling one another showing utter unconcern about the happenings in the Punjab and beyond.

Their lack of intelligence was abysmal. On the eve of the Muhammadan conquest, the Hindu principalities were divided, engaged in never-ending feuds and suicidal wars among themselves. In Western India, the Chalukyas, the Paramars and Chauhans fought with one another and also with their neighbours to the East and to the South.

In Central India, the Gohadvadas, Chandellas, Kalachuris with some others thrown in, competed for supremacy. In eastern India, Palas and Senas of Bihar and Bengal were constantly under fire from Gahadvadas of Kanauj and of Gangas of Orissa, The result was that when the Ghurid hammer fell, they were struck down one after another like nine-pins.

Elphinstone explained the causes of the success of the Muslims under Mohammad Ghori in these words: "As his army was drawn from all the war-like provinces between the Indus and the Oxus and has accustomed to contend with the Seljuks and the Northern Hordes of Tatars, we should not expect it to meet much resistance from a people naturally gentle and inoffensive, broken into small states and forced into war without any hopes of gain or aggrandizement."

Sir Jadunath Sarkar has analysed the causes of Muslim success in these words: "Islam gave to its followers (as H.A.L. Fisher has pointed out) three characteristic virtues which no other religion has inspired so successfully and which imparted to natural soldiers like the Arabs, Berbers, Pathans and Turks, a wonderful military efficiency. These were:

First, complete equality and social solidarity, as regards legal status and religious privileges. Thus, all distinctions of caste and race were swept away and the sect was knit together like the members of one vast family of brothers.

Secondly, fatalism, springing from an absolute reliance on God and the belief that what Allah wills must triumph over every human effort. This bred contempt 'of death in fighting.

Thirdly, freedom from drunkenness. Wine drinking is a sin according to the Quran and a crime punishable by the state in Muslim countries. On the other hand, wine drinking was the ruin of the Rajputs, Marathas and other Hindu soldiers and made them incapable of far-sighted military planning, conducting surprises and even guarding their own camps with proper precaution."

http://www.preservearticles.com/2012031026084/causes-of-muslim-success-and-rajput-failure-in-india.html

Another good article mentioning the points Why Hindu's got defeated

[Koi]

3 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

@Koi
It actually really simple.

Back then certain names were exclusive to certain castes. This is still true nowadays to a some extent

For example, we know Mangal Pandey is from a Brahmin clan, we know this because the surname - Pandey - that is unique to Brahmin community. Now Pandey is easy to see - it means Pandit. I give this example specifically because it is easy to see how such a name would not be used by non-pandit clans.

So point is different clans kept different names to make themselves distinct.

The original surnames of our Panj Pyarey - Das, Ram, Chand - indicate that they belonged to Kshatriya clans but were involved with different professions at the time.

And that is your sole basis for your assumption? What about oral history, the Khalsa Mool Mantar , and other historical Granths  (Suraj prakash etc?

[BhagatSingh]

48 minutes ago, Koi said:

And that is your sole basis for your assumption? What about oral history, the Khalsa Mool Mantar , and other historical Granths  (Suraj prakash etc?

Well Das, Ram and Chand are used as surnames by either Kshatriya or Brahmin clans.

Is that an assumption?

[dalsingh101]

2 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Well Das, Ram and Chand are used as surnames by either Kshatriya or Brahmin clans.

Is that an assumption?

Yes it is. And a stupendously dumb one at that. Those names are ubiquitous in Indian society, not stuck to any castes.  

Face it, you made this 5hit up to overcome your dissonance over kshatriya society failing to fulfill their duty. 

And when you do this stupidity, you also ride over the achievements of the common man, trying to appropriate them for your own.  It's just you trying to keep your caste ego intact. Nothing else. 

[paapiman]

2 hours ago, BhagatSingh said:

Well Das, Ram and Chand are used as surnames by either Kshatriya or Brahmin clans.

Bro, do you have any evidence to support the above?

Your point makes sense. A person could be from a Brahmin or a Khatri clan, but he could possibly be classified as a Nai, Tarkhan, Chamar, Chimba, etc, based on his occupation.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

34 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Bro, do you have any evidence to support the above?

Well we know that different clans kept different names. And we also know that different varans kept different names.

You'd have to study the names of those whom you know belong to a specific clan and see what kind of names they have. (Or you'd have to be part of that tradition to know what names are deemed appropriate in your clan.)

When we do that, we notice that Das, Ram and Chand - surnames are being used heavily by Kshatriyas and Brahmins.

For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_(surname)
 

Quote

Your point makes sense. A person could be from a Brahmin or a Khatri clan, but he could possibly be classified as a Nai, Tarkhan, Chamar, Chimba, etc, based on his occupation.

Yea in Bachittar Natak, Guru Sahib (or court poet) is referring to this phenomenon.

ਦੋਹਰਾ ॥
दोहरा ॥
DOHRA

ਬਿਪ੍ਰ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਬੈਸਨ ਕਰਮ ॥
बिप्र करत भए सूद्र ब्रिति छत्री बैसन करम ॥
The Brahmins acted like Shudras and Kshatriyas like Vaishyas.

ਬੈਸ ਕਰਤ ਭਏ ਛਤ੍ਰਿ ਬ੍ਰਿਤਿ ਸੂਦ੍ਰ ਸੁ ਦਿਜ ਕੋ ਧਰਮ ॥੨॥
बैस करत भए छत्रि ब्रिति सूद्र सु दिज को धरम ॥२॥
The Vaishyas started ruling like Kshatriyas and Shudras performed the priestly duties of Brahmins.2.

And in the following verses, Guru Sahib (or court poet speaking on his behalf) is emphasizing his own Kshatriya roots. It seems that Guru Sahib wanted to inspire the Kshatriyas, who had gone into other occupations, to return to being warriors.

ਛਤ੍ਰੀ ਕੋ ਪੂਤ ਹੌ ਬਾਮਨ ਕੋ ਨਹਿ ਕੈ ਤਪੁ ਆਵਤ ਹੈ ਜੁ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਅਰੁ ਅਉਰ ਜੰਜਾਰ ਜਿਤੋ ਗ੍ਰਹਿ ਕੋ ਤੁਹਿ ਤਿਆਗ ਕਹਾ ਚਿਤ ਤਾ ਮੈ ਧਰੋ ॥
छत्री को पूत हौ बामन को नहि कै तपु आवत है जु करो ॥ अरु अउर जंजार जितो ग्रहि को तुहि तिआग कहा चित ता मै धरो ॥
I am the son of a Kshatriya and not of a Brahmin who may instruct for performing deep meditations; how can I absorb myself in the embarrassments of the world by leaving you;

ਅਬ ਰੀਝ ਕੈ ਦੇਹੁ ਵਹੈ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਜੋਊ ਹਉ ਬਿਨਤੀ ਕਰ ਜੋਰ ਕਰੋ ॥ ਜਬ ਆਉ ਕੀ ਅਉਧ ਨਿਦਾਨ ਬਨੈ ਅਤਿਹੀ ਰਨ ਮੈ ਤਬ ਜੂਝ ਮਰੋ ॥੨੪੮੯॥
अब रीझ कै देहु वहै हम कउ जोऊ हउ बिनती कर जोर करो ॥ जब आउ की अउध निदान बनै अतिही रन मै तब जूझ मरो ॥२४८९॥
Whatever request I am making with my folded hands, O Lord ! kindly be graceful and bestow this boon on me that when ever my end comes, then I may die fighting in the battlefield.2489.

 

So combine that with the knowledge that Das, Ram, Chand are Kshatriya/Brahmin names. It is not difficult to see why the Panj Pyarey might have been Kshatriya. But to be fair they could be Brahmin too.

[paapiman]

@BhagatSingh - Do you think it is possible that majority of the warriors of our Panth were of Khatri origins and majority of the scholars were of Brahmin origins? 

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

Just now, paapiman said:

@BhagatSingh - Do you think it is possible that majority of the warriors of our Panth were of Khatri origins and majority of the scholars were of Brahmin origins?

At the time of Guru Gobind Singh ji this would have been the case. Since most of the sikhs of our Gurus were kshatri and brahmins. Most of them were from similar background as the gurus themselves, ie kshatriyas who had taken up different professions.

However after Guru Sahibs, Banda Singh ji came into the picture. His lax policies on recruitment, lead to a surge of Jatts in his army. There was much to loot on Banda Singh ji's conquest. So a lot of lower castes joined the ranks and the panth to benefit from this.

This then lead to a Jatt rulers during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time.

That lead to the dominance of Jatt clans in our panth today.

[paapiman]

3 minutes ago, BhagatSingh said:

This then lead to a Jatt rulers during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time.

That lead to the dominance of Jatt clans in our panth today.

But do you think, it is possible that many of those Jatt warriors were of Khatri origins too, who had taken up farming and hence classified into Shudar Varan?

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[BhagatSingh]

Just now, paapiman said:

But do you think, it is possible that many of those Jatt warriors were of Khatri origins too, who had taken up farming and hence classified into Shudar Varan?

Hmm could be.

I haven't looked into it in so much depth.

But I have known people in real life, whose ancestors are kshatriya but have kept specifically Jatt clan names to fit into the dominant community or for whatever reason.