Hello,
Shivaji-Afzal's conference is an one example.
The point is why did Hindus not see that invaders are not civilized and behaving with the invaders, aka Ghori whose was spared 17 times only so that he could com- back-win-loot&pillage, well is clearcut foolishness, not chivalry.
That Hindu kings behaved well with invaders is a basic flaw of Hindu chivalry is the point. Vasudeiva of 'Vasudeaiva Kutumbakam' does not include invaders, pillagers, cheaters, etc. Hindus were naive to buy the idea and when the king is naive, everyone has to pay.
That Hindus bought the idea of 'Vasudeiva includes all' is also where Hindus forgot a lesson of Bhagawada Gita. It does include all who are responsible, according to me, and I am not sure if there exist a nomenclature for irresponsible.
I would also like to point out that Hindu kings did meet Alex the Great pillager 'in the battle', Puru did not engage him in गमिनि कव, is not understood except that perhaps Puru bought his 'son of God' self-grandiosity as the first psychological defeat. If Indians want to 'meet invaders in battle' than there is something very wrong in psychology. Why not just tire them up, break their logistics, loot the invaders and annihilate
Indians on the other hand behave as if Indians are invading others even when it is others who come feign civility
It escapes my mind why would India army, even now, want to meet invaders in battles? The idea is self-contradictory. I would say, in my infinitesimally tiny wisdom, that it is much more efficient and 'morally correct' to 'गमिनि कव' the invaders rather than put up display of '
chivalry for invaders'(??) and give the uncivilized some credibility. Does the term 'enemy' include invaders too because it is where perhaps U.N. has bought the inclusion of invaders into nomenclature.
a military machine that needs to feed on 85% of state resources to keep going...the monster needing its regular feed or the heads of the ruling elites would be hanging from the trees.