Keshav wrote:Hindu kings very rarely had a sense of "Hinduness" or did not consider that important on the political stage.
In the same light, there was no concept of Hindu or Dharmic civilization. Kings at this time were bound by particular lineages to a particular clan which formed the basis for their kingdom.
At which time?
Ancient India, Medieval India, or the entire span of Indian History?
A few scattered examples of unity:
The Pratihar, Chauhan, Guhilot, and allied clans of Rajasthan-MP-Gujarat united to defeat the Arab invaders in the 8th century CE.
The Later Guptas and the Maukharis united to defeat the Hun invaders in the 6th century CE.
Several instances of Indian Warrior Clans
uniting against the Indo-Greeks, Sakas, and Kushans.
And now some examples of disunity....not among Hindus, but Muslims
In the 13th century CE as the Mongols crushed the Islamic power in Central Asia and Iran, Jalaluddin the son of the Sultan who had been defeated by the Mongols, fled with his followers into India where the Muslim Turks were ruling in the Indo-Gangetic plain.
Jalaluddin asked for help against the Mongols from Sultan Iltutmish, in the name of Islamic brotherhood. But Iltutmish refused
! He stood by as Jalaluddin and his Muslim army were defeated and crushed by the Mongols on Indian soil, and later even sent an embassy to the kaffir
Mongols, asking for their friendship.
We know that the Ruhelas (Western UP), the Shia rulers of Awadh (Eastern UP), united with the invader Ahmad Shah Abdali in the 18th century against the Marathas. This is because all three felt a common danger to their interests from the latter.
But after Panipat when Ahmad Shah Abdali was engaged in fighting the Sikh misls
, neither the Ruhelas nor Awadh came to his aid.....why? What happened to the notion of Islamic brotherhood and jehad
Because the Sikhs were not
a threat to the Ruhelas or Awadh as the Marathas had been. Ahmad Shah complained bitterly of their faithless attitude but safe in their lands and relieved of the Maratha threat, these Muslims calmly ignored him.
Keshav wrote:The average person was not taught Sanskrit.
First what is an "average person"? In the cities, in the villages, where? And again in which period of Indian History?
Or did you discover the average person in each period from your unnamed sources, added them all up, and then came up with one average for the entire span of Indian History?
You're turning out to be something of a troublemaker with your loaded statements; first questioning Maratha Hindawi Swaraj
on the basis of excesses in certain areas, and now questioning Dharmic civilization, Indian unity and even linguistic unity!
Language development and history
And if you ask others for "sources" cite your own sources to back your claims.