Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 18 Aug 2007 19:35

Waah! Waah! What a post! (I am assuming/hoping that all of what is written here is historically accurate..the part about British taking Delhi from Hindus was new to me.). You da man. The only thing I would add is that the Spanish were able to expel the moors from their midst.

Most of the information is taken from two sources:

1. Sita Ram Goyal's book mentioned in my post, and

2. NCERT school text book of Medieval India for class 11th, written by Meenakshi Jain, the sister of Pioneer columnist Sandhya Jain. It was published during NDA time, but now has been banned by UPA which has again reintroduced NCERT history text book written by commies. It again portrays a history of Hindus as a race of losers and "the most invaded race in history." :evil: Till how long will our school children be brainwashed by commie/congee psyops? Why don't they say who won in the end?

Both books give their sources which can be easily checked.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16102
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Postby SwamyG » 18 Aug 2007 19:55

So when the Muslims say British took Indian from the Muslims and after the British left, Muslims shuold have been the rightful rulers of India, they are lying.

Irrespective of them lying or not; that is a weird logic. What anoints them as "rightful rulers" of India? They forget Hindus were the original owners and living here since eons. And never had the full control of the entire country. The big region of South was pretty much free of Mughals.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 18 Aug 2007 20:08

I grew up on NCERT and state texts all duly vetted by eminent historians (a couple of self appointed ones are on this board as well duly preparing to ace tests vetted by other eminent historians). They were a load of bilge and left several of my classmates with the belief that there was absolutely no resistance worth speaking of, to invaders. That combined with overwhelming dollops of Gandhi & co (nothing wrong with it- but three textbooks fixating on the INC, in one grade- I kid you not!!) and all sorts of bilge about how merely talking about certain historical figures was communalism. At this age, its so easy to make out how gullible we were as kids and how easily we bought into everything we read as the cent per cent truth. A bunch of my classmates also signed up for a certain political party, which used to come campaigning, and on Independence day, R-Day etc would distribute caps, stickers and all sorts of paraphernalia. For all intents and purposes, it was the state.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7221
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 18 Aug 2007 20:28

JCage wrote:...I grew up on NCERT and state texts all duly vetted by eminent historians ...


Ah! Do not remind me those NCERT books. They glossed over the anglo-maratha wars as foot note and I was always conphoosed what happened in the period between Aurangazeb and Bahadur Shah Zafar and what those Marathas were doing in Delhi and Gwalior and Baroda? It was all conphoosing onlee... no doubt I scored a big 0 in my history :shock: when I proposited to my teacher that the real "mughal" period was between Akbar and Shah Jhehan, and from then on it was all downhill onlee ... Well I was right in a way, I now understand why the "mughals" like downhill ...

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 18 Aug 2007 20:45

Scoring in history= mug up all the dates when so and so fought so and so and regurgitate it. Along with dollops on all sorts of pfaffle about unrelated periods. I went through my texts a few years back before I changed houses and boy is it eminent historian propoganda through and through- almost zero mention of the Rajputana principalities- only mention is wars they lost against the Mughals who come out of literally nowhere. Huge paeans to Akbar, almost zero mention of Aurangzeb and Jehangir. Much made of the "caste system"- which apparently is why India capitulated so fast to invasions and why the pre-Ashoka empires werent worthy of mention. There is such an idealogical streak through all the texts that I am surprised I didnt join the CPI/CPI-M etc without demur. A few of my classmates did actually, plus the other Cong-I. Added to this, was the easy availability of "objective coverage" from the likes of Frontline, the Hindu etc from local places- I remember the Hindi newspapers at the time were far more balanced in tone and objectivity. But many "fellow travelers" used to bristle at their communalism, because instead of saying a "certain community" they'd just name names. Its all funny when I look at it now, but the educational system did do its best to mold us in a particular POV and it did work on many people.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 18 Aug 2007 21:06

Speaking of history lessons even in my case whatever little I know of it is via NCERT books.I dont know how many of you would believe me but my history teacher (classes 6-8th) was a Muslim (I dont have any issues with same) however he used to always bring this issue of how prevalent Cast system stiffled the growth of Hinduism and that how Islam was superior in many respects.This apart when discussing social issues like polygamy etc he used to bring up Lord Krishna's example and justify the practice in Islam. :evil: .

One can only imagine the affect of such teachings and books on a young child specially during the early days of schooling.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 18 Aug 2007 21:33

Best part is when many years later, I and one of my ex classmates were attending a foreign language course, a gora gentleman, brought out how Hinduism had a martial culture, but also stressed on it as a matter only when necessary yada yada. This based on his reading of our epics etc- he was actually interested in whether the weaponry described in some coffee table book was available in town. This offended my classmate so much that he launched into a diatribe about Gandhi and non violence and how only khakhi chaddiwalas (usual epithet used by our oh so intellectual crowd) had subverted India. The gora was somewhat astonished, mouthed inanities, discussed the Indo-Aussia match ( :lol: we were getting smacked there as well ) and left after sometime. (Must have chalked it upto cultural misunderstanding I guess!)
But my classmates visceral reaction was surprising..and upon asking later over a few drinks...all he had to go on was what he studied and "felt". I am quite sure many others still think and feel the same way. It is now a conditioned reflex. If anyone criticizes Nehru or Gandhi- instant outrage. If anyone points out anything that contradicts a particular worldview drummed into all of us- instant outrage. Its just the way we thought (and probably still do to some extent).

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7221
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Postby disha » 18 Aug 2007 22:56

JCage wrote:... Its all funny when I look at it now, but the educational system did do its best to mold us in a particular POV and it did work on many people...


It did not work on you and neither on me. An enforced POV will only work on non-thinking types. Also I have seen that there were "unintended consequences" of such a forced POV. Nobody likes to be told that they are "weak and defeated people", it just makes them work hard to remove that "slur"! That is why India celeberates its Republic day with such a martial fervour! Is it a case of a repressed national subconscious showing itself?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 18 Aug 2007 23:19

Well it must have worked on me at many levels- I wouldnt have known it. I was a major Gandhi bhakt as well. I still admire the man for his achievements but cant stand hagiography of political leaders- it sets off warning bells in my head irrespective of whom it is and from whichever side of the spectrum they are. So that cynicism is basically a defence mechanism from the above . It definitely worked on many people I know of- and I can still see many young chaps with the same idealogical fervour when somebody brings up Nehru or Indian history. Like it or not, the Left leaning folks have managed to make their POV the official one amongst many people and that attitude lasts for life in many cases. What I would also say is that its not a slur to be a "weak and defeated people" if you couple it with the way Gandhiism has been sold - ie it makes non violence as "the way" and pacificism is the solution to all the worlds evils.

Then you have an instinctive visceral response to anyone who doesnt follow the same adage and would rather adopt an eye for an eye response. They become primitive, communal, reactionary, uncivilized and the enemy in ones POV. I first started thinking of the other POV when on another board, a Jewish person explained how offensive he found Gandhis suggestion to just roll over for the Nazis - as he put it- and go willingly to sacrifice their lives. Even non violence has its limits and can actually be depraved when taken too far.

To put this thread somewhat back on track- I do think that the lack of security conciousness in India- the reason why we lurch from one war to another, one terror strike to another, is because this collective pysche of the reality has been erased via our eminent historians. We lack the tools to analyze our own past and realise patterns- ie the threat of political religious terror, irrespective of whether its today or from a thousand years back- because its verboten to discuss it.

Military history is specifically manipulated- bar books written by Rtd gents about their service and recent conflicts which only BRF types and a handful read anyway. Contrast to the US- where you'll find anyone and everyone often debating the Civil War with passion and often detailed knowledge.

In India to create a post independence utopia, we manufactured an idyllic past. Where everyone came into India, everything was nice and proper, the locals were bad and didnt do anything much (since the majority shouldnt resent the invasions) and the British served as the convenient recent villains to oppose and gloss over any other divides.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 18 Aug 2007 23:21

SriKumar wrote:
sanjaychoudhry wrote:
And finally, when Islam successfully conquered and converted entire countries from Morocco to Indonesia, why did they fail to do the same in India??

Good question. It intrigued me for years. Hindus are the only civilisation in the world that could survive a 600-year-long brutal occupation by the medieval Islamic army but still survive intact. .........

.... all and we still retain the spiritual traditions and culture of our long-ago ancestors. We have not let them down.

Waah! Waah! What a post! (I am assuming/hoping that all of what is written here is historically accurate..the part about British taking Delhi from Hindus was new to me.). You da man. The only thing I would add is that the Spanish were able to expel the moors from their midst.


the reason why there are so many histories written by British writers is they have understood the idea that every age has to re-examine the history and see the facts anew for they lend themselves to a different interpretation.

Factually Sanjay's account is correct but does not jive with the national narrative spun by the NCERT/JNU syncretic crowd because they add a word an omit a few to propagate their point of view in order to change India.

For an excellent discourse on why ever age should look at history again read the Introduction to "Europe Since Napoleon" by David Thompson.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 18 Aug 2007 23:42

Factually Sanjay's account is correct but does not jive with the national narrative spun by the NCERT/JNU syncretic crowd because they add a word an omit a few to propagate their point of view in order to change India.


They have done far more- they have rewritten Indian history entirely as well as made sure that no competing narratives are ever published or given credence. And they constantly seek to further this agenda in the self righteous belief that they are combating communalism by putting down majority chauvinists or what have you.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 19 Aug 2007 01:37

JCage wrote:I grew up on NCERT and state texts all duly vetted by eminent historians (a couple of self appointed ones are on this board as well duly preparing to ace tests vetted by other eminent historians). They were a load of bilge and left several of my classmates with the belief that there was absolutely no resistance worth speaking of, to invaders. That combined with overwhelming dollops of Gandhi & co (nothing wrong with it- but three textbooks fixating on the INC, in one grade- I kid you not!!) and all sorts of bilge about how merely talking about certain historical figures was communalism. At this age, its so easy to make out how gullible we were as kids and how easily we bought into everything we read as the cent per cent truth. A bunch of my classmates also signed up for a certain political party, which used to come campaigning, and on Independence day, R-Day etc would distribute caps, stickers and all sorts of paraphernalia. For all intents and purposes, it was the state.


This is one of the most successful project ever done for a large country on a voluntary basis. Most communist revolution had to be forced and people reeducated.

But Indians voluntarily accepted the garbage and still perpetuate it knowing that it is fake.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 19 Aug 2007 03:31

It all depends on who is in power and how much they are allowed to get away with. Nehru/ CongI combine were in power for donkeys years and enjoyed legendary respect and unparalleled power.

I doubt MMS or Vajpayee ever enjoyed the automatic deference the first few PMs and scions enjoyed. As such with the lack of a large middle class and others who could keep tabs on them without being called traitors ( it was open season on the Hindu right after Gandhis assassination anyway, and there really is no conservative nationalist movement apart from them at the time anyways) - they had tremendous leeway. The end result is that for decades, the Left and assorted scholars have had every chance to doctor textbooks, decide what is good for India. And as I have said before- I hold Nehru culpable as well. He wasnt some pansy overtaken by events and the evil Left. His worldview is throughout Discovery of India, and whilst good in parts- the theme repeated in it, is the same Indian texts have followed. It eulogizes what shouldnt be and engages in a lot of negationism, in the view of the "greater good". He knew what was going on and thought it was for the greater good. Same way he thought he was doing great with regards to international policy till 1962 came along and shattered that reverie.

But the problem is and always has been, you can doctor books, you can stifle debate, you can shape the elite discourse, but you cant wipe out all the evidence- whether civilizational or physical. Hardly a few hours drive from where I stayed was a Buddhist vihara. Its full of beheaded Buddhas. Even the communists couldnt have made an entire structure disappear. No prizes for guessing who did it and why. Similarly, entire ethnic groups remember partition- and irrespective of WKK style explanations, they know what happened to them and why. The Sikhs have recorded their history and safeguard it zealously- including what went on in the Mughal era. Plus, there have always been people who buck the trend, see the reality and comment on it.

I dont think this artificial suppression of history will last forever. Its like asking the South Americans to remember the Spaniards only on account of the fact that they brought horses to South America. But even more asinine accounts have been formalized in Indian history as proof of how the invasions benefited India- why, "they" brought coinage, irrigation and similar trumped up nonsense. In fact, the more I read the so called eminent historians, the more I am convinced that their sins of omission and commission are worth a centuries worth of fraud. That there are idiots who repeat this sort of thinking verbatim just goes to show how deeply colonized the Indian mind still is. Then the same sort even hold that if the Moghuls/ Sultanates ever wanted they would have really converted by force, because they had a large army or whatever. Without even going into the details of the kind of revolts they would have faced and did face, from a population that far outnumbered them, and on which they depended for economic fortitude.

And best of all, this entirely dishonest and offensive line of enquiry has been formalized as some sort of intellectual right- whether jiziya was "really discriminatory". One does wonder whether similar questions would ever be asked to the average African americans in the US about how grateful they should be to the slavers, after all they were brought to a "better world with better standard of living". This stupidity, is now given credence under the statement of the "arguementative Indian" which we are told is good and the way it always has been.

rocky
BRFite
Posts: 142
Joined: 08 Mar 2006 22:52

Postby rocky » 19 Aug 2007 07:54

Aah well ... a friend of mine has a doctorate from a "reputed" history college. When I mentioned how only in India we go around naming roads and cities after Aurangzeb despite the fact that this moron slaughtered many Hindus in progroms - many times more than the Jews killed by Hitler ... pop comes the reply ... but the Shaivaites and Vaishnavites also killed each other in the thousands, so why not condemn them! :roll:

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Postby bala » 19 Aug 2007 10:44

Thankyou very much sanjaychoudhry saab, best essay I have read about INDIAN history on the muslim invasion and India's spirited defence over time.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 19 Aug 2007 12:44

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
In 1916, the British erected a 30-feet-high victory tower on the exact spot where the Battle of Delhi was fought. (It still exists inside the Noida Golf Course.)



Thanks I had wondered for ages what it was; but had not the opportunity to go inside and look.

Real thanks

Sanjay you rock man.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Postby Anand K » 19 Aug 2007 13:40

The Rashidun and Ummayid phases of Islam was characterized by zealous expansion of the Land of Islam. The post of the Caliph, the "divine mission" and fundae like convert-or-die was strong. With the Abbasid Revolution and the changing character of Islamic center of power, the expansion of the faith phase ended. Of course, there was expansion in the name of Islam but not in a way prescribed by the Quran. The first Muslims took Mohammed's words seriously... you even had self-fulfilling prophecies like the Battle of the Masts and the First Battle for Constantinople. For example thousands went to their certain deaths (including the senior companion, Abu Ansari) at the double walls of still mighty Constantinople simply because Mohammed said that the first invasion of Rome shall fail and a third of the Muslims would die (and go to heaven of course). Even Mohammed's (apparent) advice to respect India ("the winds blowing from the Hind..." speech, wasn't it?) was closely followed till the 712AD expedition. It is perhaps one explanation why the ravaging Arab hordes went north to comparatively penniless Turan instead of India once they took Persia. I believe I had made a post on the Islamic invasion of the CAR to the advent of Subutkgin.....

Note that the change, though appearing trivial, is important...... the "decline of the spirit" was an major development and you have many famous Arabic poems lamenting this (Trivia Time: IIRC the fall of Jerusalem to the Crusaders and the fact that few Muslim rulers even cared was compared to this "loss of faith". They say it was some old Mullah who broke the Ramzan fast inside a mosque.... when challenged by the faithful he replied that why should he care for rituals now that nobody's bothered about the loss of a city like Jersualem. A few weeks later the Islamic counter-attack was launched....) . Now you had Ghoris and Ghaznis conquering India and pillaging/subjugating her lands but surely not in the way Khalid Ibn Walid or Amr Al A'as or Abi Waqas or an Ibn Muslim. These guys were the real deal, and so was a Caliph like Omar..... whole populations were wiped out, whole cities turned to dust if they didn't yield right away. Didn't spare the Arab rebels, Muslim dissenters (on paying Zakat) and surely not the powerful rival prophet, Musalaima. In fact they wasted half the "true companions" in Yamama trying to get Musalaima..... the loss of so many friends-cum-secretaries to Mohammed was what set into motion the actual writing of the Quran. The zeal could be understood by the way they conquered Turkestan from the mighty Tangs..... IIRC the whole impeial Tang army was annihilated in Taraz.

OTOH Ghori nominally sent a letter in praise of the Caliphate and received a Chadr/title in return but the Caliph's control was totally absent. Powerful kings like Balban and A Khilji did away with this custom... For the most part, the conquest of Hindustan was seen as a political and not a matter of Jannat and Jahannum affair. If it was really a jihad (in the full sense of the word), you wouldn't have a Tilak commanding Ghaznavi's forces or half a dozen Deccanis in and out of alliances with Vijayanagar or the Gajapatis. Moreover, after the Khalji Revolution the Hindustani Party (comparatively better disposed to Kufr) ascended the throne and held power till the death of Akbar. The Turanis/Siddis/Arabs etc had massacred millions of Hindus on the most trifling excuses or campaigns but the Hindustanis were content to see them as Dhimmi fellow countrymen.

PS: Note the death of Akbar also heralded the rapid comeback of Turani Faction (by the time of Jahangir most Jagirdars/mansabdars above the medium Zat level were Turanis/Iranis) and this soon led to the break-up of the empire. This continued till the rise of the Hindustani faction once again under the Sayyid Brothers, but they were treacherously murdered by the other factions. And the prize they received in return, independent domains in Hyderabad, Awadh and Bengal!

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Postby Raj Malhotra » 19 Aug 2007 14:06

A beautiful inspiring post by Sanjay Chaudhary. Kudos!!


Though as usual I must petty fog. Jats, Sikhs, Marathas were very equalitarian Hindu sects and not governed by strong Brahmnical or ritualistic traditions.

India has always been strong whenever the society has dominated the religion. So ritualism and castism has had its toll on Indian military power.

Hindusim must reform and move towards non-castist society. I have always wondered what so called Hindu priests - math heads were doing when Muslims were conquering India, why did they not organise and motivate co-operative resistance.

I think the last Battle of Panipat of Marathas with Abdali was for all practical purposes a Hindu alliance vs Muslim alliance

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 19 Aug 2007 15:25

This entire brahmin/ ritual thing is a modern construct used to scapegoat one community and use it as an excuse for the past. Why did Hindus get defeated? Oh because they were ritualistic and brahminical. Bad, bad.
This kind of scholarship has gained wide credence and has little reality to it- in fact, Brahmins used to be on the hitlist of all Muslim empires on account of the role they played in both religion and their potential to create subversion by providing religious justification for resistance. Their demonization was indeed started during the Islamic era as it was they who came up with the strictest taboos to prevent Hindu society from intermingling and converting to Islam. The same continued in the British era, when they were identified by the evangelicals as the ones who held a grip on Indian society- without understanding how broad based and diverse Indian society actually was.

Rather than brahmins or whatever, it was the overall lack of exposure to absolute, brutal kill or be killed, winner take all dictum of warfare that doomed India. The Rajputana empires were not able to grasp the concept that the Muslim invaders were not the sack and retreat types but would stay, entrench and had a theological justification of their own. They stuck to outdated chivalry while the battle hardened campaigners of the Turks used every strategem they could in war. The Indian side thought of war as some noble chessboard game where bravery had its own merit. The Turks, the Sultanates, thought of war as a means to crush their opponents totally, all means acceptable. The kingdoms in the south thought of using the new entrants against their traditional enemies- to disastrous results (Malik Kafurs march for instance). Kingdoms didnt engage in alliances till it was too late. Arrogance doomed alliances- Mahrattas at Panipat without the Jats.
Simply put- the Hindu ethos, all throughout- was live and let live. The short term aim was to "let me be"- whereas the emperors/the sultans had a theological justification for what they were doing, so they maintained unity of purpose.


Secondly, caste often played a positive role in societal resistance to invasions. For one it played a substantial role in linking the society (of the time) together and gave even the lowest on the spectrum a religious belief that he'd have a better turn the next time around. This is recorded in accounts of the time, as even the most ardent proselytisers faced a struggle in achieveing their aims. Second- more importantly- the division of tasks thanks to the varna-jati systems, meant that specialization of skills existed and it was very hard to overcome. In the medieval/ ancient era, unlike todays times, standing armies were supported by large levees, who were not trained regularly - in such a milieu, it is the community tradition which is passed on and retained.

This was partly the reason why it was immensely hard for any empire to crush rebellions. There were entire communities with traditions of military service, which would farm in regular times, assist it with military service to the local feudal legatory and so on. Come a war and all would turn to conflict. Eliminate them to the last man and you lose a potential tax base and not only that, you incite all other communities with ties to this one to revolt.

In the modern era, the jati system is no longer necessary. Skills are available via a modern system of available institutions and the state is responsible for security and has a well developed centralized system to maintain its security. But today is not yesterday, different things, different issues. Today, the British and GOI created monster of caste (from the varna/jati system) is indeed quite a burden and the sooner it disappears, the better.

aditya
BRFite
Posts: 144
Joined: 18 Dec 2005 03:15
Location: Sub-sector Jingopura

Postby aditya » 19 Aug 2007 16:19

rocky wrote:Aah well ... a friend of mine has a doctorate from a "reputed" history college. When I mentioned how only in India we go around naming roads and cities after Aurangzeb despite the fact that this moron slaughtered many Hindus in progroms - many times more than the Jews killed by Hitler ... pop comes the reply ... but the Shaivaites and Vaishnavites also killed each other in the thousands, so why not condemn them! :roll:


The fact that your JNU friend extracted this "fact" from his rear-end illustrates something about the nature of the indoctrination and the "science" of Communist Inference.

IMO it is unlikely that your friend had ever been taught any historical account of the non-existent violent conflict between Shaivism and Vaishnavism.

BUT in his JNU framework, history is all about conflict between groups seeking dominance over others. Since Shaivites and Vaishnavites are two separate groups who had a certain rivalry, one can infer that they must have "killed each other in the thousands". Theorem proved!

Let us salute the genius of Marxist "science".

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2007 16:23

in terms of pillage and loot the spanish are first followed closely by the british. but they had their low points when roman legions kicked them around and Moors setup that huge colony in spain and malaga.
I was reading a book on shipwrecks and treasure ships and it seems there's
a difference between pirates and privateers. pirates are free agents while
privateers are govt certified pirates (complete with a stamped letter) sent out
to raid enemy shipping and keep part (in reality most) of the spoils. the british had many famous privateers paid for by corporate or royal interests to head south and raid muslim, portugese or spanish shipping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Drake

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Postby Anand K » 19 Aug 2007 17:00

Singha-san, you haven't played Sid Meier's Pirates!? I always get the Spanish to place a bounty of around 10000 doubloons on my head half way through the scenarios..... ;)

BTW, the Norman invasion (1066 and all that, as them Brits say) turned around British "fortunes". Within a few score years you had the English (now Normans + the old Anglos + those few Saxons from the Germanic invasions of 400AD) transformed from a state pillaged by every tribe/empire in the vicinity to a hegemonic power with active role in Continental European affairs.... and on their way to superpowerdom. Once their Tin mines and abundant manpower made them the ***** of the Romans or their own Celtic cousins of Europe...... funny how the wheel of history turns.

Next turn of the wheel, Indian "Makara" class Heighliner I.S.S Idolator airdrops 140000 English mercenaries into the Xeelee star base at Raxus Prime. :P

Anamika
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 00:03

Postby Anamika » 19 Aug 2007 18:46

hnair wrote:Yeah, that site is written from an enthusiast viewpoint. But it is a good effort.

There was some usage of rivetted-leather armour in Kerala. There is no place for anything heavier than that in an agile fighting style like Kalaripayattu, where the sword fighting part's stress is usually on small team combat (archers being dealt with by the Indo-persian type tetra dimpled shields that ParGha mentioned, though the size of the shields leave a lot to be desired!!). However there is a stage in Kalaripayattu training (some say it is the final stage) where the student is extensively trained in using a spear(both as a lance as well as a cutting weapon like halbard). That stage might be the most significant training from a bigger military operation perspective, particularly when dealing with cavalry.

Some of the chain mail armour is supposed to stop musket shots (though with severe trauma). I remember reading this from a Russian source (forgot the author, am not sure if it is a book on Nevsky).

I am always on the lookout for Indian medieval weaponry/tactics books. ParGha (or anyone), can you suggest some titles/authors that caught your eye? Particularly Indian archery and tactics.


I don't know if you've heard of a deadly weapon used by kalari heroes like Tacholi Otenan, of a bygone age called urimi. Urimi is not exactly a spear, but a kind of coiled sword you swing at your enemy with deadly precision. For details on urimi, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi
I have seen this in use during the festival season in North Malabar where they use the urimi during "Thira" or "Theyyam". Thira or Theyyam is a folk artform of Kerala where they deify ancient warriors.

Anamika
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 00:03

Postby Anamika » 19 Aug 2007 19:46

saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


Mr.Oppenheimer, who was the architect of modern atomic bomb and in charge of the Manhattan project was asked by a student after the Manhattan explosion, "How do you feel after having exploded the first atomic bomb on earth". Oppenheimer's reply for the question was , "not first atomic bomb, but first atomic bomb in modern times". He strongly believed that nukes were used in ancient India. How can one explain the death of 14 billion people in 18 days - Mahabharatha war seems to have been fought on a world war scale. What made Oppenheimer believe that it was a nuclear war was the accurate descriptions of the weapons used in the Mahabharatha which match that of modern nuclear weapons.

Also, excavations of Mohen Jo Daro revealed towns which had been completely destroyed quite unexpectedly. There were no traces of natural disasters or wars. Scientists Davneport and Vincenti put forward a theory saying the ruins were of a nuclear blast as they found big stratums of clay and green glass. High temperature melted clay and sand and they hardened immediately afterwards. Similar stratums of green glass can also found in Nevada deserts after every nuclear explosion.

A wide variety of weapons based on sound, air turbulence, and water seem to have been used in ancient wars in our land. Most of the advanced weapons were controlled and directed by subtle sound vibrations. The science of vibrations and frequencies and how they effect people is in the ancient Vedic texts of India. The Dhanur-veda part of the Vedic scriptures deals with warfare. These explain the results of using the frequencies of words and mantras. If the mantras were recited in particular ways, it produced weapons, like the Brahmastra - the Brahmastra launched at Ravana by Raman - is supposed to be similar to the modern nuclear weapon manipulated by atomic energy. Atomic energy works wholly on total combustibility, and the Brahmastra also acted that way. It creates an intolerable heat similar to atomic radiation, but the difference is that the atomic bomb is a gross type of nuclear weapon, whereas the Brahmastra is a subtle type of weapon produced by chanting hymns, a kinda spiritual nuclear bomb, heh! Some asthras comes back to the person who launches it. eg.Karna's Nagaasthara and Krishna's Sudharsana chakra. This sounds like reusable missiles. Specific mantras could be attached to arrows, with the sound causing powerful explosions when the arrow reached its target. Take the Sabda-vedhi - according to this "sound and mantra weapon" if you throw an arrow, it will find your enemy wherever he is. A little sound of the enemy will attract this weapon and kill him on the spot. GPS 4000 years ago!

VIMANA AIRCRAFT OF ANCIENT INDIA AND ATLANTIS by David Hatcher tries to prove that aircraft was also in use more than four thousand years ago for warfare. The Karna Parva (Book 8 of Mahabharata) describes at least two battles involving aerial vehicles known as vimanas. The first battle fails to topple the regime; but eventually an especially large vimana is constructed and equipped with celestial weaponry including something containing the "power of the universe" which is interpreted as nuclear energy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 19 Aug 2007 20:41

Anamika wrote:
saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


Mr.Oppenheimer, who was the architect of modern atomic bomb and in charge of the Manhattan project was asked by a student after the Manhattan explosion, "How do you feel after having exploded the first atomic bomb on earth". Oppenheimer's reply for the question was , "not first atomic bomb, but first atomic bomb in modern times". He strongly believed that nukes were used in ancient India. How can one explain the death of 14 billion people in 18 days - Mahabharatha war seems to have been fought on a world war scale. What made Oppenheimer believe that it was a nuclear war was the accurate descriptions of the weapons used in the Mahabharatha which match that of modern nuclear weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 19 Aug 2007 21:28

as a sidenote, after the english navy chased the spanish armada up
the channel from the south and destroyed part of them with fire ships, the
survivors were forced to sail around scotland , then south off the west coast
of england because the RN lay in wait to the south and winds were as such.

so in ones, twos and threes this entire fleet sailed into hostile waters of
north sea and many were wrecked. one interesting case is a huge spanish
war galleon that arrived in a small scottish port one morning, mounting
hundreds of cannon and soldiers. the locals panicked and ran off. however
the area chieftain one Mc-xyz soon came up and made a deal with the
ships captain....food n water in exchange for the spanish soldiers help him
wreak 'bloody mayhem' on his clan rivals. the spanish duly kept their
bargain.

the next morning, the galleon blew up in a spectacular explosion and all
its treasure lay at the bottom. some claimed a english spy had done the
deed, some said the chieftain's wife was furious with him ravishing a
beautiful spanish princess on the ship and paid someone.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Postby Airavat » 20 Aug 2007 02:34

Under the Ganga dynasty Orissa became a large kingdom, coinciding with the Islamic invasion of Bihar and Bengal. This large kingdom inspired the greed and vandalism of the Turks who began sending expeditions from 1205—these were largely unsuccessful. In 1243 Narasimha Ganga of Orissa sent his army to invade Bengal but the Turks mustered their forces and the Orissan army retreated to their own frontier. They were chased by the Turks to the fort of Katasingh, surrounded by dense jungles and cane-bushes where the Hindus now lay concealed. While the invaders were besieging the fort the Orissan army emerged from the jungle and attacked from all sides—the routed Muslim army fled and the victorious Narasimha captured the entire West Bengal.

Orissa never possessed an indigenous breed of horses, nor is the land suited for raising horses. Like Bengal the hills and jungles of Orissa were teeming with elephants, which formed a large corps of the Orissa army supported by infantry and some imported horses. In the conflict of predominantly elephant forces with the cavalry and archery of the Turks, the local terrain of jungles and hills proved to be a boon for the Gangas and their successors the Gajpati Kings.

The pattern of the Islamic invasions over the next few centuries was the same—their armies would invade to break idols, loot coastal cities or border forts, and capture elephants. The Orissan forces would use the terrain to conceal their infantry and make surprise attacks when the Muslims were besieging forts or camping. Their broken forces would then be crushed by the regular charge of hordes of towering elephants.


And the downfall...

the 14th Century Sultan Firuz Tughluq of Delhi, while returning from his invasion of Bengal, suddenly attacked Orissa from the north. He first invaded the state of Sikhar in Bihar, passed through intervening hills and forests and then attacked Mayurbhanj, after which he emerged into the coastal region. The Ganga King Bhanudeva III had no intelligence of this movement and was unable to muster his forces in time—he fled while Firuz plundered Cuttack, sacked Puri, and desecrated the temple of Jagannath. Large numbers of civilians who had taken shelter in an island at the Chilka Lake were slaughtered without compunction by the bigoted invader. Bhanudeva offered to pay tribute in the form of elephants and Firuz returned by the same path, his army suffering terribly when it lost its way in the thick jungles.

Orissa fought wars in the south (against Vijaynagar) and the west (against the Bahmani Sultans) while being also involved in conflicts with its feudatories. In the midst of these conflicts Hussain Shah of Bengal raided the kingdom in 1509 to desecrate temples and plunder the coastal cities—Prataprudra Gajapati hastily returned from his southern campaign and chased the invaders to the border fort of Mandaran. But the internal conflicts sapped the revenue of Orissa and began a process of disintegration, which was hastened by the brief Afghan occupation and the Mughal conquest.


Bihar Nepal Orissa in the Islamic invasions

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Postby negi » 20 Aug 2007 09:12

Anamika wrote:VIMANA AIRCRAFT OF ANCIENT INDIA AND ATLANTIS by David Hatcher tries to prove that aircraft was also in use more than four thousand years ago for warfare. The Karna Parva (Book 8 of Mahabharata) describes at least two battles involving aerial vehicles known as vimanas. The first battle fails to topple the regime; but eventually an especially large vimana is constructed and equipped with celestial weaponry including something containing the "power of the universe" which is interpreted as nuclear energy.


Interesting I all this while I used to think that I had a Ok-shokey knowledge of Hindu mythology ,but I was unaware of this use of aerial vehicles in Mahabharatha.I have read mahabhartha from 'ncert' book and saw the whole series (by BR Chopra) on TV but I cannot recollect any account of an aerial vehicle.

Rudranath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 19 Aug 2007 15:53

Postby Rudranath » 20 Aug 2007 10:20

negi wrote:Interesting I all this while I used to think that I had a Ok-shokey knowledge of Hindu mythology ,but I was unaware of this use of aerial vehicles in Mahabharatha.I have read mahabhartha from 'ncert' book and saw the whole series (by BR Chopra) on TV but I cannot recollect any account of an aerial vehicle.


Negiji check this link. Vimanas
and this one too.
Advanced Concepts in Hindu scriptures

Then read the whole website. Has lots of information about ancient india.
Even has interesting commentary on ancient India's link with egypt,china.

Some part of the page is reproduced here without permission. I hope the author will not mind.

Introduction

The revolutionary contents of the Vedas

For a quick glimpse at what unsung surprises may lie in the Vedas, let us consider these renditions from the Yajur-veda and Atharva-veda, for instance.

" O disciple, a student in the science of government, sail in oceans in steamers, fly in the air in airplanes, know God the creator through the Vedas, control thy breath through yoga, through astronomy know the functions of day and night, know all the Vedas, Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva, by means of their constituent parts."

" Through astronomy, geography, and geology, go thou to all the different countries of the world under the sun. Mayest thou attain through good preaching to statesmanship and artisanship, through medical science obtain knowledge of all medicinal plants, through hydrostatics learn the different uses of water, through electricity understand the working of ever lustrous lightening. Carry out my instructions willingly." (Yajur-veda 6.21).

" O royal skilled engineer, construct sea-boats, propelled on water by our experts, and airplanes, moving and flying upward, after the clouds that reside in the mid-region, that fly as the boats move on the sea, that fly high over and below the watery clouds. Be thou, thereby, prosperous in this world created by the Omnipresent God, and flier in both air and lightning." (Yajur-veda 10.19).

" The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance. Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power, hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the orbit of the moon." (Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3).


If anyone wants the info on the website in book format check this.
After a decade-long presence, what began as a webpage has now made its way to the printed word in the form of a book soon to be published.

A Tribute to Hinduism: Thoughts and Wisdom spanning continents and time about India and her culture by Sushama Londhe is a collection of quotations from some of the world's greatest philosophers, thinkers, scientists, and leaders. The book takes a fresh look at Hinduism and her many traditions. Organized into more than 14 chapters including topics such as Science and Art, this hardbound book also contains beautiful photographs and illustrations. It is a great addition to any cultural library, a welcome supplement on any coffee table, or as a great gift for anyone who wishes to learn about their Indian heritage.

The book includes a foreword by Dr. Subhash Kak of Oklahoma State University, who has recently resolved Einstein's twin paradox, and Ed Vishwanathan, author of the bestselling book, Am I a Hindu?

For more information, including how to obtain a copy, please continue to www.atributetohinduism.com.



I hereby declare myself the official re-education officer of negi after he was brainwashed by the communists. :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Postby Singha » 20 Aug 2007 10:32

in general anybody of central asian or outside origin attempting to break into india seems to have had a mortal fear of 100s/1000s of war elephants charging his horsemen in a confined space where they couldnt manouver properly.

in that context the strategy of domestic kings to seek battle with invaders on some plain like kurukshetra etc was imo playing to the enemy's strength which was mobility, good horses and well trained horse archers.

playing to our game would involve drawing them into marshlands, riverine areas and forests, fighting in smaller units, using elephants in the forests for shock attacks on camps at night, psyops, and using the hilly areas where available, attacking from multiple directions to split their forces and good commanders, not taking any prisoners or releasing any prisoners to fight another day, pursuing and destroying retreating enemy columns, poisoning wells and watering holes with diseased carcasses, fighting
in the monsoon, using guerilla units to attack supply convoys, assassins.

wherever this kind of strategy has been used whether by shivaji, kings in central india or assam the TFTA faithful have been tied up in knots and
lot all their eagerness to fight, malaria and typhus in assam alone felled 1000s of the invaders steadily :twisted:

one has to understand the brutal outsiders understood none of the domestic code of honour within India which forbade such things like
pursuing defeated enemies or fighting after dark.

Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Postby Anand K » 20 Aug 2007 20:21

Ancient/Medieval Indian sources are AFAIK silent on the recce/survey ops.... OTOH there's a lot of information on the scout/survey wings of Ancient Rome, Arab conquests, Greek campaigns and even imperial Chinese campaigns across the Gobi. Many a time superior Indian forces were defeated by a lesser/smaller foe solely due to a deplorable lack in recon/intel. Twice a shallow part of a river was used by invading armies to rout the Home Team - Battle of Hydaspes and Battle of Talikota. Then there was Hemu who sent his artillery far ahead of his vanguard :eek: thinking that all the Mughals have fled Agra.... and finally you had Bhau launching a frontal attack into the Afghan center unaware that Abdali had a few thousand Shaturnals (camel mounted swivel-cannons) under his personal command. (This was the clincher at Panipat 1761.... the Maratha Cavalry was annihilated by these Shaturnals and flanking Cavalry Musketeers ).

PS: BTW, anyone got some resources on this recon aspect of Ancient/Med India? Airavat...? :)

Shwetank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Postby Shwetank » 20 Aug 2007 22:47

Actually I understand where the early socialists etc. would come have come from, as mentioned by other before they were also a product of their times and back then the British had complete superiority and locals really were in an inferior state so if you are born into that and brought up in that it's hard to think anything else. Second caste problems really were very bad, due to whatever reason (prodding from Brits as according to some members) it was terrible and looking at that and the way the Brits or other people's operated with regard to their own it was a huge difference and a sickening one. The number one priority has to be to get rid of this and ideally absolutely destroy it, and in frustration this may even mean contemplating the complete destruction of Indian civilization and start over. I certainly can empathize with Gandhi's view that he'd rather have Hinduism destroyed than let untouchibility and caste crap continue.

And it is so deeply entrenched it's maddening. It is very much present to this day, including from Rajputs which is a community some of whose past actions many on BR are fond of. Some parts of Rajasthan are in a feudal state. And this does inhibit progress and is actaully a weakness. You really think those oppressed people are going to want to fight so much? That there will be strong feelings of brotherhood and comradry? And whatever fights they might have had amongst themselves, there has always been more of these feelings among Muslims, or Brits or whoever the enemy was. They viewed themselves as one big nation and were fighting for that and placed that above others. In our country it was not the Hindu community or the nation of India of which an individual in any part is your close comrade and brother but your specific and narrow community. It is towards this that they display protectionist and collective behaviour. And this still is again present to the modern day in many people in my experience. This is why there seemed to be more people allying left and right against anyone as long as it wasn't their community. In a the local populance's eyes another Hindu community was often equivalent to the British or some foreign community.

In this context, the whole idea of indoctrination can seem useful and it seems necessary to just clear the whole field and meld all these people into one large community where they think of everyone else in the country as one of their own. And this may require you to gloss over anything which implies divisions and emphasize how divisions are just bad. And then once you achieve some sort of unity and maturity in the populance then you can go back and examine history from an unbiased veiwpoint, where the glories of one community or shame of another community don't cause discomfort or reaction amongst the modern populance who simply view it as part of human drama and circumstance and something that happened in the past and doesn't matter anymore. And I'm not convinced if the local population really did have the maturity to handle all that and would integrate together, it still hasn't completely, and there had to be extreme emphasis atleast on all official fronts as much as possible to get rid of this division thing and look only at the future (by far the most important aspect). Ofcourse it got carried away by people, manipulated by people with other motives and the main focus got lost by many people down the line. But it all played a role in our country getting to where it was and I think was a necessary part of our development, though now it's gotten carried too far and we need to move on. And whose to say how we would have ended up without Nehru's policies etc. maybe like Pakistan? After all the Paki's were all about national security and international dimplomacy and deal making and aggresiveness and giving the local population a very positive outlook on their own history etc. And yet.....it didn't quite work out, and I'm not convinced it would have been any better for us if we had followed the same path. We took a more difficult and annoying path which led to many short term losses but I think eventually will leade to long-term winnings. Maybe it's all karma, our initial leaders certainly meant well so it all worked out better somehow and we have to remember just how collosal a task it was to keep together all these people in the country and try to make them into one large community which cared for it's members all equally, something which hasn't been the case for a long time, at best only a few times in a long history or possibly never.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 21 Aug 2007 01:52


Are the Pathans Hindu Rajputs ?

By Khaled Ahmad



Both Pathans and Rajputs are warlike people. Their bravery and sense of honour are legendary. But are they also the same people? At least one person thought so.

A British doctor Henry Walter Bellew (1834-1892) thought in 1864 that most Pakhtun tribal names were actually Rajput names which had undergone changes over time. This actually gave rise to the theory that Hindus had occupied the region called Afghanistan before the ‘foreigners’ took it over.


As civil surgeon in Peshawar Bellew perfected his knowledge of the local languages. He was chief political officer in Kabul during the Second Afghan War. When he retired as India’s surgeon-general he was already an authority on oriental languages.

In a nutshell, Bellew’s thesis is that all Afghan tribal names can be traced to Greek and Rajput names, which posits the further possibility of a great Greek mixing with the ancient border tribes of India. Some of this survives in Punjab’s Jhang district today where local inhabitants are conscious of homophonous similarities between their names and the great Greek tribes.

Bellew looks at the zai and khel suffixes indicating Pakhtun bloodlines. He thinks that zai is from Persian zaadan (to give birth) which is the same as Sanskrit jan; and khel is clearly Sanskrit kul (family). The Hindu name Kuldip means lamp of the family. The Pakhtun use zai and khel interchangeably.

Bellew starts with the mythology of the origin of the Afghans — perhaps the most detailed story given anywhere. Then he goes to the great Greek historian Herodotus when he discusses the Greek-Bactrian tribes North of Afghanistan.

The Lydoi (Greek ‘y’ is actually ‘u’) are the Lodis, Maionoi are the Miyanis, Mysoi are the Afghan tribes taking Musa as prefix, Thynoi and Bithynoi are Tanis and Bitanis, the Karoi are Karo, Ionoi are Yunus, Doroi are Dor, and Aioloi are Ali.

It should be noted that wherever possible the Afghans will try to convert their pagan names to Muslim ones, as Isapzais have become Yusufzais. This also inclines them to trace themselves to Jewish roots. Bellew gives us the other dimension: all these Greek-sounding names are also Rajput, meaning that Greek intermixing was with the Rajput races when they lived in the
region now occupied by the Afghans.

Bellew thinks prefix Suleman is derived from Rajput Solan which is today visible in Solanki. Daud, as it appears in Daudzai and Daudputra among Muslims, is actually Rajput Dadi or Dadika.

Utmankhel or Utmanzai (to which the family of Wali Khan belongs) are mentioned by Herodotus as a Greek tribe Utoi. Utmanzais have sub-tribes like Baddo (Rajput Yaddo, the tribe of Krishna), Ballo is Rajput Bhalla khatri,

Bura is Bora (Vohra) mercantile Rajput, a name taken by Bohras, the Ismailis of Gujrat, Mandal is the Jat tribe Mada, its version Mandanr, live along Jadun or Gadun tribes (of Hazara which is Sanskrit Abhisara), which names are variant of the Jadu Rajput tribe. These are Yadavas of India.

Gaduns established Gajni which is today Ghazni. The Afghan Batanis are ancient Bhattis, the elite of the Rajputs serving at the court as ministers.

Mahmand actually means ‘the great Mand’. They are in Peshawar but their Rajput relatives are now found near Bombay. Pliny calls them Mandriani of Afghanistan; they are the Wends of Austria. A branch of them called the Bai-zai are located in Kohat which was an old Greek city.

The Suri Pakhtun were people brought from Syria by the son of Seleukus who ruled that part of Alexander’s eastern empire. The Afridis are mentioned by Herodotus as Aparytai brought to their present abode by Ghaznavi, but they came from the Afghan province of Maimana.

Similarly, the Orakzai are mentioned by Arrian as Arasakoi, and their rivals Bangash came originally from Ghazni. The Bangash are also called Bangak which relates to Bangat Chohan Rajputs. Their neighbours the Turis are the same as Tiwari Rajputs of India. Thus the story of Pakhtun tribes goes on.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Postby Paul » 21 Aug 2007 01:55

Didn't know where to post this...

[quote]
Study of the Pathan Communities in Four States of India
Safia Haleem

India has been attracting invaders, travellers and traders since the time of Alexander the Great. Every invader had left its marks on the geography, history and culture of the country. The impact of some like the Moguls is very prominent in the monuments like the Taj Mahal. The others such as Iran had left its legacy in the language and literature. One set of invaders whose marks are either not visible or little attention has been paid to them were by the Afghans or the Pathans as they are popularly known in India.

The word Afghans and Pathan is synonymous when we deal with the history of the sub-continent. Pathans came as invaders, traders and they served in the armies of the rulers, whoever was on the Throne. They were hired as soldiers, officers and diplomats by different rulers throughout the history of the last few centuries. Moreover, the whole clans would follow from the tribal areas of Afghanistan and settle in the green pastures of India. Very little is known of the legacy of these Pathans, except that they still live as close community in, Punjab, Utter Pradesh, Central India and Bihar on the North Eastern borders. The Indian film industry has always thrived on the actors with the family name of Khan and it was always assumed that their ancestors were Pathans.

Pathan! What does it mean in India?
Generally the Pashtoons outside India believe that anyone with the Sir name of Khan means a Pathan. The Indian film industry has famous names with this title, such as Shahrukh Khan, Aamer Khan and Salman Khan. When a new film of these stars is released on Video, people in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, watch it with special fondness. It becomes a matter of Pride for them to identify with their favourite stars as their Kinsmen. However the reality is different.

The teachers and students of History and Social Anthropology in the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi warned me to be careful with the word “Khanâ€

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Postby Airavat » 21 Aug 2007 04:15

The Caste System of India had its effects on Muslims as well and there are clear parallels which the Muslim Sociologist Aysha Sunbul told me to watch. In Hindu Religion there are four castes. As it happened the Muslims of India have unconsciously followed the same pattern by having four equal groups.

The Sayyeds: The descendents of the Prophet Mohammad.
The Pathans: The Martial race and the warriors.
The Sheikhs: Converts who till the land and are mainly in businesses.
The Workers: Barbers, cooks, Ironmongers etc.
Bhopal


The lady is mistaken. Only the first three (along with the Mughals) are the equal groups....the last, Indian converts, were the lowest and were shunned socially by the foreign Muslims.

It was actually a racist system where the foreign races (Ashraf) considered themselves superior to the Indian converts (Ajlaf).

And the foreigners were also divided further into those who were of foreign birth (vilayet-za) and those who were of foreign descent (several generations had lived in India).


Ancient/Medieval Indian sources are AFAIK silent on the recce/survey ops


Usually military info is limited in our texts and we have to make assumptions based on what little is available and by cross-comparisons with other cultures.

From an earlier post on the Maurya Empire

Maurya Military Administration

Chandragupta maintained a vast standing army of 600,000. It was controlled by a war-office made up of 30 members....these 30 were ditributed among six boards of five members each:

1. Infantry
2. Cavalry
3. War-chariots
4. War-elephants
5. Transport, commissariat, and army service.
6. The members of this board were to co-operate with the Admiral of the Fleet.

A description of board no. 5:

They co-operate with the superintendent of the bullock-trains, which are used for transporting engines of war, food for the soldiers, provender for the cattle, and other military requisites.

They supply servants who beat the drum, and others who carry gongs, grooms for the horses, and mechanists and their assistants. To the sound of the gong they send out foragers to bring in grass, and by a system of rewards and punishments ensure the work being done with despatch and safety.


Usually the work of foraging, finding grazing ground for the animals and water supply for the army, went together with recce. Such recce and communications work was best done by horsemen.

The ancient/medieval armies marched in different formations, separated by several kilometres. Each formation had light cavalry units which fanned out around the marching column and did the twin work of foraging for food/water and seeking info on the enemy.

When the enemy was sighted, or definite information on his location was obtained from spies, the alert was sounded. The different formations closed up and formed into battle array, with the non-combatants safe in the rear and protected by a rear-guard.

PANIPAT

In the Panipat example, Ahmad Shah Abdali's army, on its march through Punjab is described in the following words by a contemporary historian:

"The Abdali vanguard under Jahan Khan, Shah Pasand Khan, and Abdus Samad Khan had entered the Banur and Chhat district (26 km north of Ambala) on the 15th (December 1759) and that their front skirmishers were advancing, daily foraging right, left and in front, beating the jungle and shouting for thirty or forty km on each hand..."

Ahmad Shah had also given instructions to his soldiers to slaughter any Indian who saw them, no matter if they were women children or old men, farmers or city-dwellers, Hindus or Muslims. In this way he denied exact intelligence on his movements from reaching the Maratha army units in UP and Delhi until it was too late.

The Maratha army units were under Dattaji Sindhia, who as overall commander was campaigning against Najib Khan Ruhela in Ruhelkhand, his brother Jankoji held the reserve troops at Delhi, while Malhar Holkar was campaigning against Jaipur.

As soon as the Abdali troops swept aside the Maratha (commanded by Bhoite) and Mughal (under Muhammad Said Khan Qipchaq) formations in Thanesar, Najib Khan came out of his defences and pushed Dattaji back to Delhi, wher the latter was killed in the Battle of Barari Ghat.

Malhar Holkar and Jankoji joined forces, sent all their baggage artillery and non-combatants to Maharashtra under the charge of Govind Ballal, and fought a guerrila campaign against the invaders, moving from place to place and attacking the enemy's flanks.

This was similar to the 26-year war in which their ancestors had defeated Aurangzeb, but for its success it required a friendly local population to supply food and information on the enemy movements. This friendly population was not available in the north because the Maratha tactics of plundering the countryside were only less hated than the worse plundering, rape, and enslavement, of the Muslim inavders in the past.

Malhar Holkar was at Sikandrabad on the 28th of February (1760) when he received intelligence that nearly 10 lakh of treasure from Najib Khan's lands in Ruhelkhand had arrived at Anupshahr on its way to the Abdali camp. Malhar sent out scouts to search for a ford (on the Yamuna) near Anupshahr and halted for 3 days. Because of this long halt, the enemy learnt of Malhar's location, and sent a strong cavalry unit under Sardar Jahan Khan, which made a froced march through the night and surprised Malhar's camp at dawn on the 4th of March.

The broken remnants of the Maratha army hovered near Mathura and Agra through the summer months, waiting for the fresh army under Bhau to arrive in the north.

The Abdali army, on the other hand was cantoned safely in Aligarh, and was fed and supplied by Najib Khan Ruhela, who then persuaded the Nawab of Awadh to join his (mostly Shia) forces with the Abdali's (Sunni) army.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Postby Katare » 21 Aug 2007 07:11

disha wrote:
JCage wrote:...I grew up on NCERT and state texts all duly vetted by eminent historians ...


Ah! Do not remind me those NCERT books. They glossed over the anglo-maratha wars as foot note and I was always conphoosed what happened in the period between Aurangazeb and Bahadur Shah Zafar and what those Marathas were doing in Delhi and Gwalior and Baroda? It was all conphoosing onlee... no doubt I scored a big 0 in my history :shock: when I proposited to my teacher that the real "mughal" period was between Akbar and Shah Jhehan, and from then on it was all downhill onlee ... Well I was right in a way, I now understand why the "mughals" like downhill ...


Disha,

You brought up a really important point! I bet,99 out of 100 educated Indians would not know what happened after Aurangaeb but 100 out of 100 would know how Prithivi Raj was defeated and will be able count the whole Mughal dynasty from Babur to Aurangajeb. After Aurangajeb, who commanded the largest area of any Mughal Sultans, there is a blank in our history until Bahadur Shah Jafar pops-up on the stage and than its British all the way till Gandhi.

Until I came to USA and had unrestricted access to internet I had no way to find it out what happened after Aurangajeb either. I am pretty sure there are millions of Indian kids growing up wondering over same question, we did a decade or two ago.

Although I have slightly different opinion over how hinduism survived for almost 800 years under two world powers of the yesteryears. I have two explanations for this -

1) The reason for survival and fall is the same, political/military disintegration in medieval India. It was impossible for anyone to defeat that many independent medium and small sized kingdoms spread over huge landmass. If we were fully integrated under one emperor, it would have been very hard to defeat us at the first place but once defeated it would have been easy to dominate the defeated people culturally and religiously. Defeat of one kingdom didn't demoralized people of other kingdoms and invaders have to eventually take the help from one hindu kingdom to defeat other.
2) Inherent strength of religion and culture of extreme flexibility and openness. The judecious mix of tolerence, intelect and valor becomes very hard proposition to fight for long period of times.

The stable era of Mughal empire began with Akbar's tolerance and it ended once Aurangajeb reversed that policy. This has political relevance for even in today’s India.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Postby Airavat » 23 Aug 2007 02:38

PANIPAT continued

Peshwa Balaji Rao received news of the rout of his northern armies, and the death of the heroic Dattaji Sindhia, on 15th Feb 1760——at that time he was in Ahmadnagar, celebrating his victory in a brilliant campaign against the Nizam of Hyderabad. The leading part in that campaign was played by the young and dynamic Sadashiv Rao Bhau, the Peshwa's cousin. He was now given command of an army, which was tasked to restore the Maratha fortunes in North India.

In the war against the Nizam, the Peshwa had fielded 40,000 Maratha cavalry and 12,000 Telegu infantry (under Ibrahim Khan Gardi). This whole army could not be sent to the north because the Nizam had to be forced into fulfilling the terms of his surrender. So the Bhau started with 22,000 cavalry and 8000 Telugu infantry (originally trained by the French officers earlier in the Nizam's service and armed with French-made Fusils). In the north the Bhau was joined by the contingents of Malhar Holkar, Jankoji Sindhia, and other minor sardars, boosting the cavalry strength to 37,000 and the whole army to 45,000.

On the fatal day of January 14, 1761 these 45,000 formed up against the enemy, the town of Panipat behind them:

MARATHAS................................................................................ABDALI


LEFT Gardi (8000 infantry) artillery......(6000 mix) Afghan+Persian RIGHT
....Gaikwad (2500 cavalry).......artillery (14,000 inf) Ruhelas....................
....Vithal S (1500 cavalry)...................(1000 cav) Bangash....................

CENTRE sardars (2000 cav)......camel swivels (1000) 2-man.........CENTRE
Sadashiv Bhau (13,500 cav)artillery.......(2000 inf) Kabuli........................
& Vishwas Rao.........................artillery (15,000 cav) Shah Wali Khan.......
.........................................................Ahmad Shah Abdali in the rear.....
.........................................................with 9000 cavalry reserve............

RIGHT Antaji M (1000 cav).........artillery (3000 mix) Awadh..............LEFT
.........P Jadav (1500 cav).....................(15,000 inf) Najib Ruhela.............
.........sardars (2000 cav).....................(5000 cav) Shah Pasand Khan......
........JR Pawar (1500 cav).....................................................................
Shamsher B'dur (1500 cav)................reserve of 4000 cavalry behind the
........................................................left wing under Nasrullah Khan
J Sindhia (7000 cav) artillery.................................................................
M Holkar (3000 cav)

Ahmad Shah Abdali had a superiority in numbers (60,000 deployed+13,000 in reserve+1500 more who were hiding in the camp), mobile artillery (1000 camel swivels with 2 men each), and foot-soldiers armed with jizails (almost 30,000 mostly Indian Ruhelas). The Marathas had a superiority in stationary artillery, fired at the commencement of the battle, and which became useless once the cavalry and infantry had moved forward.

Sadashiv Rao Bhau had reached North India as early as June 1760 so it is important to see what his plans and movements were between that time and the battle itself.
Last edited by Airavat on 25 Oct 2007 05:46, edited 1 time in total.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Postby Murugan » 23 Aug 2007 10:00

HinduPadPadshahi (Marathi) of Swatantrya Vir Savarkar speaks volume about the war of Panipat and stratagies and tactics of Maratha inspired Pan Indian Force to challenge Nadir Shah and later Abdali. The book also narrates vividly what happened to India after Aurangzeb.

The book promptly gives all the credit to Samarth Swami Ramdas - who unlike present-day petty parochail marathi politicians - wanted to awake the hindu ethos and called for one HindustHan!

history books written by most of the left leaning historians and other headless white chickens is the last misguiding layer on otherwise brilliant indian history.

The first layer was created by sultanate and mughal rulers when indians were speaking, reading and writing the languages of the rulers, i.e., arabic and persian.

These two layers have somewhat 'successfully' created 'halkapan' in the mind of the hindus so that they can be subjugated according to the wishes of these rulers - mughals and britishers.

in last decade - the history of india adorned different colours - saffron and then the red...

Ironically, the history written by britishers is becoming more and more laughable after discovery of many historical sciptures, coin hoards, the advent of internet, google.

e.g., according to headless white chicken historians, there were no rulers or kings in the Kamrup (the north-east india, especially Assam area) before 13th century.. but now the coin hoards of kamrup kings - as early as 9th century are found and officially auctioned. similarly, the mints of marathas, earlier not reported are now found to have been well established in many parts of india - right from orissa, some towns of bengal, tanjavur (tanjore?), the maratha states like Gwalior, Indore, Baroda, Bhonslas of Nagpur, Dhar etc. (these states were as big as present day few european contries!)

It beats me and every open minded reader/student of history - why this pathetic attitude of our HRD ministry and idiot historians are still being tolerated and why there is no open war against these morons... Maine to local level pe jang chhed di hai..

Needless to mention that RSS has played a very important role in bringing the smriti - the memory of brilliant hindu history and traditions and legacy of victorious, pratishodhi marathas.

After the fall of Aurganzeb - Bajirao a true warrior, ambitious, fearless and diplomat - a hindu had an ambition and will to rule India and wanted to win Dilli.

The other national hero of bajirao's stature was/is Subhas Chandra Bose - Chalo Dilli.

Jai Hind!
Jai Maharashtra!

***

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Postby Murugan » 23 Aug 2007 10:28

deleted by self
Last edited by Murugan on 24 Aug 2007 08:58, edited 1 time in total.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 23 Aug 2007 14:37

Murugan no offence meant, but If you want to post regarding Sanskrit lots of things can be posted, However I feel it will be good if there is a continuation of airvats's post and if this thread deals with only a specific point to keep things precise and perfect.


Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest