How Hinduism destroyed the military – Part I – R.K.NEHRA

How Hinduism destroyed the military – Part I

Source :SIFY

Hinduism, or our flawed understanding of it, has emasculated our military mindset, asserts  Air Marshal (retd) RK Nehra in his book Hinduism and its Military Ethos. In this extract, he lists, and debunks, the various excuses for the erosion of Hinduism’s lost ‘warrior mindset’

We will summarize the influence of the Hindu religion on the military value system of the Hindus, and go into the causes of Hindu military defeats. We will do that in light of the overall Hindu military performance over a 2,000 year period, and not restricted to any one particular event, decade, century, or period.

Causes – That Were Not 

Before we go into the actual causes of Hindu defeats, we will spend a few minutes over the causes that were not responsible for the defeats, but are projected as being responsible. Like all defeated people, Hindus have shown great dexterity in inventing ingenious causes for their defeats. We list below such projected causes:Projection 1: India of those days was divided into small states.

Editor’s Pick
Take the war to the enemy
Demographic invasion of India from the North East
Seven blunders that will haunt India for posterity

Fact 1: Most of the so-called ‘small’ Indian states were each bigger than Ghazni and Ghur, from which the invaders had originated. Some of the Indian states, including that of Prithviraj Chauhan, were of medium size, and individually many times the size of Ghazni and Ghur. Even otherwise, it was incumbent on one of the bigger Indian states to incorporate into itself, smaller states by persuasion, if possible; by the sword, if necessary.

This is the route clearly chartered by Chanakya in his Arthshastra, and followed by every successful general of the world from Alexander, Caesar and Genghis Khan to Mahmud of Ghazni. No Hindu general after the 7th century AD considered that option. They had limited vision, and would often rejoice after recording a modest victory over a small neighbor. Bards in the service of the ruler did the rest; they magnified it as a great world-class victory.

That was enough to boost the ego of the ruler.

In any case, the first period of Hindu slavery had started around 180 BC, when the barbarian tribes snatched power from the mighty Mauryan Empire (no excuse of small states there).

Projection 2: These Indian ‘small’ states were quarrelling with each other.

Fact 2: The referred quarrels were normal neighborly conflicts, which were a world norm those days; there was nothing unusual about it. These should not be given undue importance. At the time of the actual invasions by Mahmud of Ghazni (1009 AD) and Muhammad Ghauri (1192 AD), the Rajput rulers of North West India displayed exemplary unity. A large majority of them (almost all) sent their forces to fight the invasions under one command.

Projection 3: There were many collaborators among the Indian rulers. The often quoted names are of Jaichand of Kannauj (12th century), and Mir Jaffer of Bengal (18th century).

Fact 3: This is a highly exaggerated point. Some recent research has shown that there is no particular evidence to support the charge that Jaichand actually collaborated with Ghauri; the story is based largely on folklore. Anyway, collaborators have been known to exist in all civilizations. An odd collaborator in a few hundred years should not make an entire subcontinent go under with such ease. Surely, India of those days was not so fragile.

Projection 4: Ghazni and Ghauri are often blamed for descending on Bharat with a large fleet of swift-footed cavalry, with ‘mounted archers’ who could fire most accurately, even when at full gallop. (The Hindus armies had no answer for them.)

Fact 4: Hindus do not like to examine why no Hindu general could appreciate the central role of the horse as a ‘weapon of war’. General after Hindu general continued to rely on the delusive strength of elephants, which let them down repeatedly, and at the most crucial moments of battle.

Projection 5: Hindus like to blame Babur for having come with gunpowder cannons. Tamberlane, Nadir Shah and others are often blamed for being barbaric.

Fact 5: Hindus were by far the most advanced civilization of those days. Why did they not consider inventing gunpowder? It appears that issues of war were no priority for them. War is a very dirty business; it is not a slugfest between ageing aunts. Hindus could have themselves displayed a bit of barbarity (meaning aggressive spirit).

Projection 6: Hindus often like to blame Muslim armies for not following the rules of war.

In 2009, a TV serial showed Prithviraj Chauhan sitting on the top of Muhammad Ghauri, with his sword on the latter’s throat. Just at that moment, sunset was announced, and Prithviraj let Ghauri go, to resume the fight the next day. Muhammad Ghauri could not believe his eyes, and his luck.

As per this story, he attacked the same night and inflicted a crushing defeat on Prithviraj. That one defeat pushed the great Bharat varsha into 750 years of slavery.

Fact 6: The practice of only daylight fighting was prevalent in the Ramayana/Mahabharta days. The above story presumes that Ghauri would have been reading those epics before coming to Bharat. The episode is obviously not true; no sane person, leave alone a general of caliber, could have followed such a fatal practice in the 12th century AD. Still, the TV serial chose to put up this (imaginary) episode, presumably in the belief that the public would lap it up; some may even consider it as a high point of Hindu civilization. If our interpretation is even partly correct, things could not have got any worse.

Projection 7: It is fashionable for Hindus to blame the British for their policy of ‘Divide and Rule’.

Fact 7: Instead of blaming the British, Hindus should ponder why they allowed themselves to be so easily divided. The cold fact is that we were hopelessly divided even before the coming of the British. The British followed their dharma; we forgot ours.

Projection 8: Whenever the question of prolonged slavery of the Hindus arises, many Hindus are often heard saying that in spite of all that, the Hindus civilization did survive.

Fact 8: It all depends upon as to how one defines ‘survival’. For most part of the slavery period, Hindus had no control over their own destiny; their women were routinely dishonored, their mandirs demolished and gods humiliated. Every type and manner of atrocities was inflicted on them. If all that constitutes as ‘survival’, we concede the point.

Projection 9: Hindus love to project that they were always brave, and continue to be so now. They say that Bharatvarsha was always teeming with shur-virs (Bravest of Bravehearts), who would smash anyone casting a lustful eye on this most holy land. As an example, they often refer to the victory of Lord Rama over Ravan.

Fact 9: For the last about 1000 years, Hindus could not produce a ‘Shur-vir’ who could teach a lesson or two, to the following types: — Violators of Hindu hearth and homes, and tormentors of Hindus — Molesters of Hindu women (in hundreds or tens of thousands) — Demolishers of Hindu mandirs (in thousands). There was not one Hindu ‘shur-vir’ who went to Ghazni and Ghur to avenge the honor of their women. The mighty and the powerful watched from the sidelines, waiting to be attacked. No provocation was enough to stir them for any type of offensive action.

Having covered the ‘non-causes’ of Hindu defeats, we analyze the possible cause of defeat in the following chapter.

Filed in: Articles, इतिहास

One Response to “How Hinduism destroyed the military – Part I – R.K.NEHRA”

  1. September 30, 2020 at 2:55 pm #

    As a measure of introspection, article is in right direction.
    Lot many points I too have been stating in my articles since 2007.

Leave a Reply