Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[SwamyG]

Talking about guerrilla warfare; one reason why Malik Kafur was harassed much by Vira Pandya was because Vira Pandya adopted guerrilla like fight instead of meeting him out in the open.

[Murugan]

Irony is our offical history text books do not speak even a little about:

1) Battle of Kayadara where Naykidevi routed Muhammad ghori's army in the foothills of mount abu and that ghazi fled the battleground.

2) Bhimdev Solanki II defeated Qurb-ud-din Aibak when aibak tried to invade Gujarat

3) Defeat of Salar Masood in the Battle of Bahraich

4) Numerous defeats of nizams.

5) Failed attempts of Akbar's fauj to capture ahmednagar and down south (?). (Means akbar was never a true emperor of whole of India, major portion Rajasthan in west, Assam and beyond in east were never under his control)

6) That Not moghul including Aurangzeb could not subdue Assam, cooch behar etc

(Text books only speak about 2nd Battle of Terain, Abdali's Invasion and Babar's 'victory')

[Airavat]

A copper coin of Prithviraj Chauhan depicting a horseman bearing a lance with streamers. The coin bears the legend "Sri Prithvi Raja Deva" in Devanagari script.
Battle of Tarain - estimate of forces on both sides in the two battles

Rahul M, I'm replying here instead of the blog. Lets look at the condition of the Chauhan kingdom and their forces after the second battle. South Punjab was a new acquisition that they had made by defeating the Ghaznavid sultanate; hence this area was lost very quickly. However their main base was in Rajasthan which continued to hold out under the leadership of the Chauhans of Ranthambhor for another century. Mohammed Ghori's major blunder was in moving on towards the Gangetic plains and not completing the conquest of the Kingdom of Ajmer.

Generals of Prithviraj

1) Chauhans of Ranthambhor: the founder of this kingdom named Govindraj was banished from Ajmer for some offence and was therefore not present in either of the two battles. Since his kingdom became a major thorn in the side of the Delhi Sultanate it is assumed that he had a substantial army.
2) Govindraj of Delhi: he and his son Chandraraj held Delhi. In the first battle he was mounted on an elephant and had his teeth knocked out by a spear. Govindraj immediately hurled back a lance at Ghori, which caused such bleeding that the sultan fainted on his horse, and was carried off to safety by a Khalji soldier along with the rest of the fleeing Turk cavalry. Govindraj was killed in the second battle while his son Chandraraj defended the fort of Delhi.
3) Bhuvanik Malla: According to the contemporary Hindu text Prithviraj Vijay, the brothers Prithviraj and Hariraj were like Rama and Lakshman, while the general Bhuvanik Malla was the incarnation of Garuda (who saved the princes of Ayodhya from the serpent noose of Meghnad). This general defeated the Bharasiva Nagas of Central India, but his presence at either of the two Tarain battles is not known.
4) Skanda: the descendants of this general wrote the Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa in which they assert that he fought at the first battle of Tarain but was absent in another campaign during the second battle. After the death of Prithviraj he helped Hariraja in capturing Ajmer.
5) Udayaraj: This general was from Gauda (Bengal) according to the Prithviraj Vijay. Another text, the Hammir-Mahakavya which was written more than a century later, confirms his existence and asserts that he attacked the city of Delhi in an attempt to rescue the captive Prithviraj. He was absent at the second Battle of Tarain because he could not muster his troops in time to join Prithviraj.
6) Hariraja the brother of Prithviraj: he liberated Ajmer and launched an attack on Delhi. He had friendly relations with the Solankis of Gujarat, but was finally defeated by the Turks in 1194, and killed himself to avoid captivity. Hariraja's rule is confirmed by archaeological evidence in the shape of his inscription dated 1194, and those texts which record his name have a greater value than others.

So we have these twin pieces of evidence to show that Prithviraj had a much smaller army in the Second Battle of Tarain:
1) The absence of his generals Skanda, Udayaraja, and Bhuvanik Malla. Each general had the power to lead separate campaigns and must have commanded substantial forces.
2) The ability of the Chauhans of Ranthambhor to defy the Delhi Sultanate for a full century, the ability of the surviving Chauhan generals to counter-attack the Turks in Delhi, and the ability of Hariraja to liberate Ajmer, all suggest that a large part of the Chauhan force was not present at Tarain.

The conventional method in calculating the cavalry forces in the medieval era, when cavalry was the dominant element of most armies, is to assign 10,000 horsemen to any prince or general named prominently in the records. However in India cavalry-dominant armies only emerged in the 14th century with Mewar, Marwar, and Vijayanagar, and for the forces of Prithviraj the contemporary texts describe a mixed formation of horse cavalry and infantry, sprinkled with some elephants and camels. Infantry was in greater numbers to cavalry, which in turn outnumbered camels, which were more than elephants imported from more fertile regions (In eastern and southern India the proportions were: infantry>>elephants>>cavalry the last of which was imported). For the Turks, who controlled the horse breeding region of Central Asia and West Asia the proportions were cavalry>>>camels>>>>infantry>>>elephants (imported from India).

Estimate of forces in the Second Battle of Tarain - 1192

The Muslim sources only state cavalry forces and barely mention the others, and in the Second Battle of Tarain they state that Ghori divided his army into four units of 10,000 horse keeping the fifth of 12,000 under his own command, giving a total of 52,000 cavalry with the camels, infantry, and elephant numbers unknown for Muhammad Ghori's army. For the Chauhan army the only general named is Govindraj of Delhi and Prithviraj himself, and both Hindu and Muslim accounts state that Prithviraj tried to buy time by negotiating so that at least Udayaraj would come up in time to bolster his army. But assuming that there were other minor chieftains commanding units of a few thousand, with at least 10,000 under Govindraj, and assuming 12,000 under Prithviraj, we can conclude that the Chauhan army numbered 30,000 at the most, with the all-important cavalry at only 10,000. This explains the total rout of this army by the five times larger Turk cavalry.

Estimate of forces in the First Battle of Tarain - 1191

In the First Battle of Tarain both Udayaraj and Skanda were present, boosting the total Rajput army to 50,000 with cavalry at 20,000. Muhammad Ghori who had spent some of his army to garrison the fort of Sarhind, is stated by the Muslim sources to have kept his army in the conventional three wings, commanding the center himself. The Muslim army can be estimated at 35,000 cavalry (+ camels, infantry, elephants numbers unknown) with 10,000 in either wing and a few thousand rearguard. The Rajput army placed the cavalry in the wings and kept the infantry and elephants in the center. Although the wings were evenly matched, the Turks hesitated and the Rajputs struck the first blow, the momentum of their charge breaking up Ghori's wings which eventually gave way in the ensuing sword fight at close quarters. Meanwhile Ghori was holding on in the center as the elephants and infantry of the Rajput center slowly came up to join the battle, and as described above Govindraj mounted on his elephant, seriously wounded Ghori, sending him flying with the rest of the center. After the victory the Hindu army gave chase but were easily outpaced by the Turk cavalry; hence they besieged Sarhind and forced it's surrender after nearly 12 months.

[Singha]

looks the ability to disengage after a defeat and retreat long distances in good order without being enveloped and routed by pursuers was a key advantage of the horse-heavy central asian armies...they could always live to attack another day when conditions were better. in our case though we defeat them, we had no means to pursue them back to their homelands and burn them forever, hence resigned to waiting for the next attack at a time and place of enemy's choosing.

[vishvak]

Hello,

As a newbie I wouldn't like to ruffle feathers of those who know. So take this for its worth.

My whole point was 'why meet invaders in battle'. It makes no sense to me.

It also means that we have even now this tendency to 'meet invaders across boundaries in battle', giving them credibility of fighting a war and chance to 'win in a credible war' in the first place. I do not know if the Indian army has any preparations made for long drawn out गमिनि कव on Bharata and if there are such plans made to understand गमिनि कव within our borders. If the Indian army understands long drawn गमिनि कव, remember how The 27 Year War That Changed Course Of Indian History, within (regardless of whether it happens or not), I think Indian forces will be at a much advantaged position against invaders feigning civility and without burden of 'offering credible battle-fight to invaders'. The whole routine in the history of invaders_came-King_offered_war-if_King won(invader went back returned later to attack again)-if_King_defeated( invader killed&plundered) looks a bit dodgy in a way. It starts with 'invaders_came' step looks like civilized step in discourse in the first place, then King_offered_war etc. where the king bought into the "offering a legitimate war to invader" idea in the first place and giving chance of win possible. One could create a list of these 'offered legitimate wars' to understand why these kings offered such wars and how did the invaders feigned civility(in the name of God/race/what_I_got_different). Even during these times, a colonial picture with an English general in a uniform & words like 'queens command' is made to look civilized and the poor countrymen who were robbed by the same are made to look 'intellectually challenged'.

Reading about Shivaji makes us proud. He cared more about defending motherland and defeating invaders regardless of 'offering a legitimate war on platter to looters'. How smart he was then can be gauged also from where he conduct 'wars' & also the fact that how across times he is made to look like a 'local guerrilla' in his own country just so that other dandy warmongers around him at that time( & admires of the uncivilized today) get some credibility of being civilized.

Shivaji built hundreds of forts even sea forts for defense. In these times of machines and fighter-jets, what could be a 'fort' which would be as effective as 'forts in the pre-war-machine days'? It is puzzling why the country has not built such 'forts' along the border in spite of wars, not to mention sea-forts etc.

[Lalmohan]

vishvak - look up "maginot line" if you want to know why forts are now part of history

[vishvak]

we had no means to pursue them back to their homelands and burn them forever, hence resigned to waiting for the next attack at a time and place of enemy's choosing.

Not to sound crude, but no means to pursue&burn invaders and "waiting for the next attack at a time and place of enemy's choosing" look like ideas sold earlier by invaders( and their admirers today) in text books. It is only a reflecting on the behavior today, when enemies have 'right to invade' but Indians got to take care of boundaries and offer battles on demand, in this age of machines, considering how pursue&burn literature/studies is absent in discourse. Indians don't have to wait for next war with Pakistan who are known troublemakers, especially in this age when UN had no shame in running away when in Shri Lanka the battle turned too hot to shield anti-Tamilians. Will UN not close office here when Indians would be in trouble too?

If everyone can take advantage of gray areas (who owns gray areas?), why not Indians too to punish trouble makers( though I realize that those who support trouble makers are very strong and control UN). The history and behavior look like we live in a country not ours but some 'people who have more right over deshbhakts' because of excuses- which need to be studies very well and cleared), and can't take a handle of situation. This is already an indicator that things are going majorly wrong at places.

[Rahul M]

vishvak, aren't there enough threads for the Indopak thingy that you have to bring it to this thread as well ?

[Lalmohan]

vishvak - singha is making a point about the nature of the indian civilisation - it is insular and in modern diplomatic speak - a status quo power. it is not in our nature to pursue and burn. but as you say - it is a good policy, it has served other civilisations well in the past. if you look at the US and UK - when was the last time a battle took place on their home soil? in the case of the UK, it is the battle of culloden, where the english destroyed the scottish highland clans for the last time - in scotland. in the US, not since the civil war in the 1870's or if you count the extermination of native peoples, upto the 1890's when the last of free tribes like the Nez Pierce were hunted down in the pacific northwest

[vishvak]

vishvak, aren't there enough threads for the Indopak thingy that you have to bring it to this thread as well ?

Hello,

My post was about general history, just not on one side as such. In these modern times, we still have this mentality that enemy will come calling from this side, when a relevant fact is that borders are much more reachable in this age of technology. We have missed, as a culture, to imprint effect of technology and war-machines on our psyche after colonialism was over.

About my mail, my apologies. I am a newbie. I take it that the members of this board, which I am fond of reading since a decade, are much more knowledgeable, wise and have actually done things. As such I understand that I am bound to fall and learn on the way. Please don't misunderstand me. I meant no disrespect (especially when I am nobody to disrespect).

About 'inclusive culture' - it is again I think a myth. I remember Shri Rama saying to Bali, however powerful he was, that 'those who live by rules of the jungle should be ready to die by rules of the jungle'. The Chola Kingdom was big, but have we not forgotten it? Are we claiming our heritage? My point here is that somewhere along the way we forgot that if there are warmongers around, they are bound to bite us into pieces. The whole world lives on those who are responsible, not those who are irresponsible. Pakis/Chinesee and may be others, who are fond to bite others, are therefore bound to bite India is what I think. In our own inability to shatter self-made barrier of 'inclusivity', we are also not wise enough to stabilize the boundaries. So is not breaking the back of invader and destroying them, and making the place better, also part of responsibility of the civilized? We lack the clarity towards this.

So let me clarify a few things. In our discussions, who is going to aid the civilization? Those who write English books? The Govt.? The U.N.? The most powerful? The most troublemakers? No. In other words, we are waiting for others to do certain things to aid the civilization. That did not happen, and perhaps will only happen if we help ourselves, is what I understand. Our rich cultural heritage must be defended, encouraged, and cultivated.

Effectively here, what I see is somewhere lack of clarity on a few things that I have not read at a lot of places. For example, there is a lot of literature about how Alex brilliantly maneuvered in a battle. But look how many battles Hindu Kings have won, and no one but those in our culture point out the brilliance at few places. I can point out a few things, but I am not sure what all, may be later.

[Airavat]

My whole point was 'why meet invaders in battle'. It makes no sense to me.

The terrain of Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan is very different from that of the Western Ghats. Tactics are dictated by geography....and also by geopolitics. In Shivaji's time his kingdom was a minor factor in the Deccan, where the main contest was between the Mughal empire and the Deccan sultanates, and that gave him the advantage. Meaning whichever side won, Shivaji would make gains against the loser. But the point is that his "smartness" did not create this geopolitical situation.

Shivaji built hundreds of forts even sea forts for defense.

There are thousands of forts all across India. Check the Indian Forts through History thread.

[vishvak]

vishvak - singha is making a point about the nature of the indian civilisation - it is insular and in modern diplomatic speak - a status quo power. it is not in our nature to pursue and burn. but as you say - it is a good policy, it has served other civilisations well in the past. if you look at the US and UK - when was the last time a battle took place on their home soil? in the case of the UK, it is the battle of culloden, where the english destroyed the scottish highland clans for the last time - in scotland. in the US, not since the civil war in the 1870's or if you count the extermination of native peoples, upto the 1890's when the last of free tribes like the Nez Pierce were hunted down in the pacific northwest

Hello,

Could someone please also point out some instances where natives ran after invaders' defeat to where they were, and put more civilized in power? I am assuming it must be rare in pre-independence times(or ignored & made to look rare) but we understand this much better. It is a request, to be clear.

[Lalmohan]

the chinese did so with the mongols (as well as the russians with the mongols)
the crusaders did with the arabs
rome saw back and forth over centuries
greeks against persians
...

[vishvak]

My whole point was 'why meet invaders in battle'. It makes no sense to me.

The terrain of Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan is very different from that of the Western Ghats. Tactics are dictated by geography....and also by geopolitics. In Shivaji's time his kingdom was a minor factor in the Deccan, where the main contest was between the Mughal empire and the Deccan sultanates, and that gave him the advantage. Meaning whichever side won, Shivaji would make gains against the loser. But the point is that his "smartness" did not create this geopolitical situation.

Shivaji built hundreds of forts even sea forts for defense.

There are thousands of forts all across India. Check the Indian Forts through History thread.

Hello,

I would like to view things a little differently (personally). Of what I have read about Shivaji, Shivaji did live in those situations but it is he who made the most of available. He did not wait for anything when building forts. He also defeated Adilshah (his invasions & later in bloody battles) to defeat his sultanate, & became a force to reckon with. After his death, Marathas waged a running गमिनि कव (or is it Gaameeni Kaavaa?) for decades when against much bigger army, and thus Marathas became a huge power. That is exactly how it could be, defeating power nearby than the other bigger one, according to me.

About forts, I think we are still living in a mindset of colonial times. I have tried to think what could be modern equivalent of 'forts' post-Industrial Revolution but unable to, or it is just that cities are not built next to jungles/mountains these days. The Janjira fort took hundreds of years to be a tough one from a simple island but we don't have long term plans to set up such 'forts' which could be 'as effective as forts of earlier times'. Indians have won wars even in face of unprecedented pressures post independence. It is the Karma of the civilized to continue the good & battle uncivilized-it is not a choice. Indians should be ready at the first sight of barbarians.

About the terrain part, I think it gives some kind of breathing space to Indians on Eastern front where गमिनि कव should be preferred choice considering the terrain. I mean, why give a battle on platter to invaders at their choice when terrain can provide substantial aid. Eastern front should be prepared for extended guerrilla warfare too.

I am not able to understand how the terrain of Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan can be of use for running gorilla warfare. I will do some reading which according to me is essential, though some examples (could be somewhere similar) are requested.

the chinese did so with the mongols (as well as the russians with the mongols)
the crusaders did with the arabs
rome saw back and forth over centuries
greeks against persians
...

Thank you for these examples. Does anyone not feel that such examples are not taught well in schools even as students pay fees? In any case, I will read on these too. Jaya Ho!

[Lalmohan]

re forts - read about what i said earlier about "maginot" line and also "blitzkrieg"; the latter doctrine is still the bedrock of modern conventional war - this will tell you why forts are totally redundant

and it is guerrilla warfare - from the spanish word "guerra" - meaning war and suffix "illa" meaning little - it is pronounced "gay-ree-ya". gorillas are territorial but they do not do much warfare, unlike say chimpanzees and bonobos - who do.

get hold of Brigadier Sandhu's books on ancient and medieval warfare in india, you will learn much. shivaji is not the only example of successful military leadership in indian history

[Airavat]

Marathas waged a running गमिनि कव (or is it Gaameeni Kaavaa?) for decades when against much bigger army, and thus Marathas became a huge power. That is exactly how it could be, defeating power nearby than the other bigger one, according to me.

Indians should be ready at the first sight of barbarians.

Meaning Indians should wait for the barbarians to come into our country, then exhaust them in guerrilla warfare, while our own country is destroyed? For that is what the Marathas, and other peoples in the Deccan and southern India, went through. It created the "Great Anarchy" which opened the doors for the European powers to establish their dominance on Indian soil, having previously established their dominance on Indian waters.

The new system of war required disciplined infantry and artillery, which could tear apart any Indian cavalry, and all the Indian powers failed to adapt to this system.

[ramana]

Can you drop the hello? Sounds patronising and from a cheap TV serial.

[vishvak]

Marathas waged a running गमिनि कव (or is it Gaameeni Kaavaa?) for decades when against much bigger army, and thus Marathas became a huge power. That is exactly how it could be, defeating power nearby than the other bigger one, according to me.

Indians should be ready at the first sight of barbarians.

Meaning Indians should wait for the barbarians to come into our country, then exhaust them in guerrilla warfare, while our own country is destroyed? For that is what the Marathas, and other peoples in the Deccan and southern India, went through. It created the "Great Anarchy" which opened the doors for the European powers to establish their dominance on Indian soil, having previously established their dominance on Indian waters.

The new system of war required disciplined infantry and artillery, which could tear apart any Indian cavalry, and all the Indian powers failed to adapt to this system.

I meant that Indians should be ready on sight of barbarians and deal with invaders in Guerrilla warfare right from the border. Offering legitimate battle on demand head on makes little sense, according to me, when fighting invaders. Since pakistan's evil eyes are on Kashmir, better make them fight Guerrilla warfare if tougher to deal with for pakis. For example it is better to have bases in mountain ranges from where raids can be directed regardless of how far pakis are from the border, according to me. I am not discounting resistance, but invaders should know that invader's harassment is not optional throughout India and no amount of feigning civility would matter. This all should be part of outlook recognized as civilized and so should be pointing out that those who invade should not be considered civilized.

If we are so touchy to be prepared in this manner on our own lands, it would certainly be less convenient to imagine a punitive action going far across borders when Guerrilla warfare on Indian troops is assumed, is it not? Will this not help when Chinese amass on the border? Should we wait to do Guerrilla on Chinese only on our soil or could we begin it right across without recognizing boundaries for those invaders who do not recognize boundaries themselves? Is Guerrilla bound by boundaries and how much of Indian forces can run Guerrilla on invaders regardless of borders? Will we prepare Guerrilla warfare only when needed or we should be ready to give the worst even when there is no immediate threat?

About "The new system of war required disciplined infantry and artillery", is it not that in public discourse lathi technology rules the mind? Let me quote Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." (M. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth.) so have we made the most of Mahatma Gandhi's quote? I am talking only about mentality here. Have we adopted to post-colonial mentality to have the best knowledge and use of best weapons every time, manufactured in-house to avoid troubles in war? Would Americans wait till others make better weapons/strategies to improvise?

[Kanson]

In most Hindu kingdoms primogeniture was the law, the other siblings were appointed to serve the state as generals or provincial governors, or simply alloted estates for their sustenance.

In Muslim kingdoms the one who captured the throne had to slaughter all other contenders to the throne.

How the descendants of sultans and mughals disappeared into oblivion? No heir exists today (?) unlike descendants of kings who fought them.

After the death of Aurangzeb power passed into the hands of the nobles and the mughal emperor was a non-entity. There was no need to slaughter other family members now and they just multiplied in numbers.....some were pulled out of obscurity to be placed on the throne, only to be replaced a few years later.

The descendants of Rajput/maratha kings are doing well though. they have built-up business, and have preserved the heritage well, have earned good name and fame in the society. what could be the reasons.

These were long standing dynasties with strong ties to the people of the area where they ruled.

I guess this a simple answer. In Indian scenario, any legitimate ruler or King emerged from the local clan who are/were into native business of agriculture or trade. Rajputs were traders, who controlled the trading routes, went back to their business. Descendants of these rulers became landlords/Zamindars/Village heads in due time and did went back to their native business once out of power. What was the native business of these Sultans and Mughals? They are raiders/nomads who lived of from others' land and wealth. Once out of business, they disappeared into oblivion. That is the reason i tend to believe Pakistanis are true representatives of these Mughals and Islamic hordes.

[Lalmohan]

guerilla warfare is only effective under certain conditions, its not a magic bullet for dealing with any enemy. there are a range of strategies and tactics, and different ones suit different geographies, situations and enemies.

ask yourself if these tactics were so successful, why did the maratha's lose at panipat-III?

[darshhan]

Take for example Kushwant singh's father identified Batukeshwar dutt to british as one who threw bomb in assembly...

Another stellar witness in the trial of Shaheed Bhagat Singh,Rajguru,Sukhdev etc was Phanindranath gosh.Infact he was the main witness whose testimony led to the hanging of the above.

The reason I know this is because the very same Phanindranath was gunned down by Baikunth Shukla in revenge.Baikunth Shukla was a young member of HRA.In response to murder of Phanindranath , Baikunth Shukla was himself hanged.At the time of hanging he was 27 yrs old.

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

And I am very proud to say that I am related to his family.His uncle was also a revolutionary.Shri Yogender Shukla.

[vishvak]

guerilla warfare is only effective under certain conditions, its not a magic bullet for dealing with any enemy. there are a range of strategies and tactics, and different ones suit different geographies, situations and enemies.

ask yourself if these tactics were so successful, why did the maratha's lose at panipat-III?

Marathas did not do Guerrilla warfare in Panipat 3. Marathas also did not employ diplomacy.

An Analysis by Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd) : http://www.rediff.com/news/column/250-y ... 110113.htm

He says in his comments at the end:

The disaster of Panipat took place mainly due to bad politics on part of the Marathas. The lessons from Shivaji's time were forgotten and Marathas fought simultaneously both in the south as well as in the north. Half the Maratha army was in south when the life and death struggle was being fought at Panipat. The Rajputs were alienated, the Jats spurned and Sikhs underestimated. With even one of these as allies, Panipat would never have taken place.

Unfortunately this lesson was never learnt and even in the fight against the British the Marathas fought alone except in 1804 when Holkar took the help of Jats of Bharatpore and defeated the British.

Another:

Panipat inculcated a kind of diffidence in the Maratha psyche that brought in defeatist mentality when it came to a really great contest. The tendency now on was to retreat in good time rather than risk everything on an uncertain prospect. This caution that can be seen in many later day battles can be directly traced back to the happenings at Panipat. Panipat was a major national trauma and never again were the Marathas to repeat the daring feat of Bajirao the first and his dash to Delhi. Most post Panipat wars fought by the Marathas were defensive wars. The offensive spirit of the Marathas was the biggest casualty at Panipat.

Lack of unity in Desh was the reason. The defeat and following pillage/massacre was the unfortunate bloody consequence.

Another comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... he_outcome

which is very explicit that Marathas did not employ their strength of Guerrilla even far away even when suggested within by Malharrao Holkar.

Is there a specific way in which Guerrilla warfare must be conducted because asymmetric warfare must adapt too I think.

As a side-note, Afghans are not 100% anti Indian per se( may be 99% but not 100%). Even after the battle of Panipat 3, the article in Wikipedia notes "Bhau were recovered by the Afghans and under Ahmad Shah's personal direction were cremated according to Hindu custom." & also "Shah Shuja ... is alleged to have later secretly sent letters to Bhausaheb through his spies regretting his decision to join Abdali."

"Facing a seeming stalemate Abdali decided to seek terms, which Bhau was willing. However Najib Khan delayed any chance of an agreement with an appeal on religious grounds and threw doubt into whether the Marathas would honour any agreement."

It is the backstabbers within Desh who invite outsiders for greed and perhaps tend to be holier and more brutal than outsiders who need to be taken care of.

By the way, is Wiki a good source for Indian History? It has some credibility though people may find bharat-rakshak.com mentioned there as a source than the other way I think.

[Yagnasri]

In spite of the tactical defeat at Panipat it was the last major invasion from the west and even in the victory the afghan forces were left quite weak. Marata forces though lost the war ensured that afghans also pay a heavy price in the war. Unlike gora writers - Hindu Pad Pad Shahi has to good account of this war from Indic side.

[NRao]

Lack of unity in Desh was the reason.

A comment from the Kargil experience attributes the Indian victory, in spite of the better paki positions, to the country being behind them.

[Airavat]

[vishvak]

I understand that Ghamini kava of Marathas can not be replicated as it is everywhere, though asymmetric warfare is an idea that needs to be understood well regardless of presence of invader, for invaders won't give any notice of invasion. Though I am glad to point out that times have changed. There is technology to aid integration of country.

If India is stronger than pakis, does it mean that Indian defenses should avoid being familiar with Ghamini Kava, where Desh is with the fauj, the weapons are better (though not the best always but difference of technology is not too wide at all), and so on. If Indians are at advantage, does it mean that one could ignore getting familiar with Ghamini Kava and be comfortable with a public discourse on it. Instead of offering legitimate battle on demand to uncivilized, why not put the worst on their head?

Is it civilized to treat invaders with any legitimacy, regardless of how good the uncivilized are at feigning civility to invade? Is being stupid part of being civilized even if the idea is offered to the culture like candies in a fair?

According to my mind, treating any invasion/attack with offering no legitimacy and ruthless Ghamini Kava is the most civilized behavior. Does anyone think that I am putting this idea very well or am I lacking here and am obviously noob according to the members? Please make me understand in as much convenient manner as convenient.

[Atri]

Is it civilized to treat invaders with any legitimacy, regardless of how good the uncivilized are at feigning civility to invade? Is being stupid part of being civilized even if the idea is offered to the culture like candies in a fair?

According to my mind, treating any invasion/attack with offering no legitimacy and ruthless Ghamini Kava is the most civilized behavior. Does anyone think that I am putting this idea very well or am I lacking here and am obviously noob according to the members? Please make me understand in as much convenient manner as convenient.

I think you mean to say, one should treat adharmik invaders in all sorts of ways and should not wait for chance to indulge in dharma-yuddha with them.. All means required to eliminat the adharmik foes (adharmiks can be indian or phoren, hindu OR non-hindu) should be employed. Adharmik war in response to adharmik invasion is dharmik. Let me know if i understood you wrong.

Marathas did not graduate into dharmik war against adharmik foes beyond a particular level. Adharmik war is just when we are weak fighting against a stronger adharmik invader. when we are strong, we need to wage just and consistent dharma-yuddha (righteous war) on all fronts to eliminate the adharma conclusively. While Marathas were trying to graduate to this level, due to some unfortunate reasons (like early deaths of all their excellent kings) is what primarily undid them. While the Maratha legacy continues to linger in form of modern republic of India, it is unfortunate that narrative of modern India refuses to acknowledge this descent and refuses to learn lessons from the deeds of their predecessor(s).

go through this thread for better understanding of Maratha movement - http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5061

[vishvak]

The first para is perfectly good reflection of what I was saying. Though it is better to make people on our side see reason first.

Though I do not understand completely this part:

when we are strong, we need to wage just and consistent dharma-yuddha (righteous war) on all fronts to eliminate the adharma conclusively.

It is this mindset that led to fall of many. We wait if we are strong.

I have read examples that 'stronger armies' were surprised at dead of night - that resulted in end of dynasties and start of bloody long history of dark times. Imagine the mind of invaders who look down on 'strong armies' as no more than foolish bunch offering battles on demand to uphold dharma as if it matters to them. Offering battles on demand to adharmics is not a good sign.

Our definition of Dharma has been made to look inwards regardless of the fact that all the invaders could feign civility just so that it is the uncivilized who must be treated well by offering battle on demand. While we look inwards and search for our shortcomings, the invaders run up and kill.

The point is, is the definition of Dharma only for within Desh, so that if an uncivilized invaders come calling the dharmics 'find out quickly that it is their duty to offer the invaders legitimate battles'?

Are there any shortcoming of this mentality that it is completely dharmic to put adharmic wars on adharmics regardless of space/time.

If we are strong, we do not need to find excuses to be dharmic to adharmics.

[Rahul M]

guys, this discussion is going outside the mandate of this thread. please find threads in GDF or strat forum.
cheers.

[Advait]

@vishvak, I have been reading your posts and agree with you 100%.

There was something wrong with our ancient rulers for not going after the invaders to their homelands and put an end to their attacks for good. The invaders always lived to fight another day.

"They had better horses/chariots" is not a valid excuse. It's not like they had F-22 and we had MiG-21 onlee.

Whatever advantage they had, our rulers could have easily replicated or neturalized it if they put their minds to it. Ancient tech/strategy gap was not that huge. All they had to do was import horses, technicians, artists etc and improve the native defense/offense capacity.

Also this talk of fighting dharmic yudh is a great disservice to the common people. It is easy for intellectuals (both ancient and modern) to talk about a high moral ground. But its the soldiers and their families who have to pay the price. The only concern of the rulers should be their own people. Fight in such a way to minimize own losses should be the only rule that they should follow.

[ramana]

Guys this thread is getting derailed. Please stick to topic.

We have many threads in GDF to discuss leadership or lack thereof.

[tsarkar]

^^ Not sure why we're wallowing in self righteousness. FWIW, all participants fought to the best of their abilities.

Throughout the ages, there have been invasions from the west. Many invasions were defeated, and the reasons our wins are not remembered is because it maintained status quo in our society. The reasons our losses are remembered is because it changed status quo in our society.

How many Indians remember how Zorawar Singh and the Dogras defeated the Chinese and established an Indian presence at Ladakh less than 200 years ago? We dont, because it didnt change social status quo.

It is romantic/nostalgic poets/scribes trying to come to terms with our losses, and why our beloved heroes lost, invent reasons like we fought dharmic while the winners didn't.

A good analogy would be how Indian cricket fans invent reasons when Sachin Tendulkar or Saurav Ganguly don't play well. We start blaming umpires and coaches.

As Airavat clearly explained, the confederation of chieftains under Prithviraj simply didn't have the capabilities or inclination to pursue the Ghorids. I'll explain the inclination part below.

Between the Gupta periods (500 CE) and the latter Mughal/British periods (1500 CE), Indian rulers were not strong or prosperous enough to maintain large standing armies.

Not strong – because of multiple states (Pala/Pratihara/Chalukyas/Rashtrakutas) and within each state multiple individuals vying for power.

Not prosperous – because the Huns/Epthathalites/Haytal – blocked the Silk Route and the Islamic conquest of Iran closed our West Coast sea trade with Iran. South Eastern Indian states did prosper trading with East Asia, but that revenue could not benefit our North Western states.

So most Indian states could maintain only small standing armies. These standing armies mostly dealt with law and order (eg. some province or prince rebelled somewhere). Similar to how most Marcos are tied up dealing with piracy and Parachute (SF) Btns in Kashmir.

Most northwestern invaders raised armies with the incentive of loot. Such armies are easy to raise, because every volunteer/conscript could benefit from looting.

Conversely, majority of the Indian populace were occupied in agriculture, tradesmen (potters, carpenters, smiths, herdsmen) or traders. When these were called up to face a Ghaznavid/Ghorid invasion, a farmer cannot leave his fields at short notice and a trader cannot leave a business trip halfway. When required to fight a campaign for long periods, a farmer could not leave farms untended for long periods (otherwise his family/clan/village/state will face a food crisis) and a trader will lose his business livelihood if he spent time fighting.

There was no prospect of loot defeating the Huns/Epthathalites/Haytal/Ghaznavids/Ghorids.

Dawood Ibrahim can recruit Kasab type desperadoes and use terror threat to extract hafta from Mumbai businessmen. However, if I was to raise an army of Mumbaikars to occupy Karachi or Somalia, what is the loot/hafta we can get from these places? Zero.

Most Mumbaikars would rather earn more money safely at Dalal Street. So the inclination is lacking.

So I cannot raise an army as fast and quick as Dawood Ibrahim or Hafiz Sayyid can. I cannot sustain the army because my soldiers would like to resume their usual occupations that is more economically rewarding to them.

Similarly, Prithviraj Chauhan could not mount a campaign to pursue and destroy Ghorids because his troops could not leave their farms and businesses untended for long periods, and there was no prospect of loot/tribute to compensate his soldiers. Not because of any dharmic reasons. There was no economic inclination for common soldiers to fight long campaigns once the immediate threat had been met.

The same reason – leaving livelihood unattended - prevented Prithviraj unable to raise armies quickly to face the second invasion.

There were many inscriptions of Pratihara and Pala rulers defeating Huna invasions. But those victories are not remembered because it did not change social status quo. Nor did those victories economically benefit society.

Does our population remember Kargil today? We're more concerned about the markey valuation of our investment in Reliance and Infosys shares.

Ironically, SDRE Purbiya soldiers defeated, conquered and garrisoned Afghanistan & NWPF for two centuries because EIC/British Raj was one of best paymasters those days – similar to an Accenture/Infosys today. EIC also paid a one time pension – that was economically revolutionary in those days. There was no dearth of Purbiyas – including Brahmins - desperate to serve EIC campaign overseas because the pay package was so good. Like our softies today are desperate to go onsite.

No warrior - then or now - intellectually or emotionally masturbates - before/during battle. It is done by poets and scribes trying to find reasons for defeat. Like fans invent reasons whenever Sachin Tendulkar / Saurav Ganguly fail to perform.

Mods - apologize for the usage of words, but couldnt find more appropriate ones.

[vishvak]

The mail takes away a bit of luster off Dharmic lands by pointing out how useless it is to 'invade' others, because it will only result in our hardened soldiers suddenly finding themselves encamped in the middle of desert even after winning wars. It points to lacking inclination, which sounds correct apparently though I am willing to present counter-points to these in proper forum, if it is correct.

[ramana]

And the 1971 victory against a group of forces is not so well remembered as the 1962 debacle against PRC.

[tsarkar]

"They had better horses/chariots" is not a valid excuse. It's not like they had F-22 and we had MiG-21 onlee.

They were more skilled in the usage of horses. By "skilled in the usage", I do not mean individual riding skills, but strategic skills on how to deploy cavalry formations.

Here are an Air Commodore's words on how unprepared the IAF was in the 50's and 60's.

http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2011/08/1 ... t-in-1962/

1.

The government never seriously sought our opinion and we know now that at least one opinion against use of offensive airpower was given out to the Government from the Air HQ.

Political leadership is complacent despite loss of Northern Areas in 1948.

2.

At the leadership level within the Service we did not know what we would want to do if we were given a free hand by the government.

Service Senior Leaders at AVM/AM levels being complacent.

3.

We also did not know what our capabilities were because we had never thought of such a fight let alone devising strategies for such a fight.

Services middle leaders becoming complacent at Air Commodore/Group Captain/Wing Commander levels.

4.

We had not trained for the task and had not even discussed possible tactics to be used.

Service Junior leaders being complacent at Squadron Leader/Flight Lieutenant levels.

The use of IAF as an example is illustrative, it applied to all three services. We only woke up after 1965 and took warfighting seriously.

We had Hunters and Mysteres in 1962 like our ancestors had horses and chariots in middle ages. Its just that we didnt know how to use and employ them. Lets realize that warfighting is a serious subject and stop inventing reasons like we fought dharmic and opponents adharmic.

[vishvak]

Whatever advantage they had, our rulers could have easily replicated or neturalized it if they put their minds to it. Ancient tech/strategy gap was not that huge. All they had to do was import horses, technicians, artists etc and improve the native defense/offense capacity.

I was just reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurjara-Pratihara Pratihara Dynasty. The dynasty saw off invaders for hundreds of years till other dynasties started taking lands/forts off leaving Pratihars to the mercy of raids of the uncivilized without resources. Is there any mention of Pratihara dynasties good work here/link? I am sure the 'secular' ( meaning by theory - sarvadharma samabhava, by practice 'dharma-abhava to Dharmics and dharma-samabhavas to utooknowhos') discource will have no place for Pratihaaras. Are Pratihaars even mentioned in History books?

As long as Desh is united, foreners can leech onto themselves. A divided Desh is an open invitation, given legitimacy further by religious/race/what_I_don't_got calls.

[tsarkar]

The dynasty saw off invaders for hundreds of years till other dynasties started taking lands/forts off leaving Pratihars to the mercy of raids of the uncivilized without resources.

Hindu Shahis at Kabul, Kashmiris under Lalitaditya, Chalukyas, Palas all fought Epthathalites/Hunas. Al Biruni has described Hindu Shahis in vivid detail. Search Wiki and you'll find references to Al Biruni's glowing references to Hindu Shahis of Kabul and Pala copper plates referring to their victories against Kambojas/Huna.

I am sure the 'secular' ( meaning by theory - sarvadharma samabhava, by practice 'dharma-abhava to Dharmics and dharma-samabhavas to utooknowhos') discource will have no place for Pratihaaras. Are Pratihaars even mentioned in History books?

Can you please stop abusing & misusing the word "dharma"?

FWIW, following the Greeks, the Kushans, Sakas, Kidarites (Red Huns) and Epthathalites (White Huns) repeatedly invaded India. They raided before Islam was born and they too looted temples because of the riches stored there - like the recent Kerala temple vaults, Siddhivinayak temple in Mumbai and TTD in Tirupati. Vikings, even after conversion to Christianity, looted English Churches and Taimur's troops ravaged the Ottoman empire in Turkey.

The Epthathalites (White Huns) were called Haytal in Arabic and became Khalji/Ghalji with time. They invaded India before Islam and they invaded India after Islam.

The Invaders used the Islamic cause as an internal binder to hold troops together. That still didnt help most of them getting killed by their own troops. Nadir built skulls towers of Iranians & was killed by his own guards.

Abdali had to declare a jihad to muster troops for Panipat. Raghunath Rao had ousted his son Taimur Shah from Delhi, captured Multan, Lahore and Attock. I personally believe if Raghunath Rao led the Maratha campaign, he would have certainly won because of his past experience beating the Abdalis. Sadashiv Rao had no experience in Northern Campaigns and failed to strike alliances with Jats and Sikhs. After Panipat, Abdali couldnt resist the Jats and Sikhs from taking over, or the Chinese Qing from occupying Kashgar and dominating the Uyghurs that still continues today.

[Atri]

Abdali had to declare a jihad to muster troops for Panipat. Raghunath Rao had ousted his son Taimur Shah from Delhi, captured Multan, Lahore and Attock. I personally believe if Raghunath Rao led the Maratha campaign, he would have certainly won because of his past experience beating the Abdalis. Sadashiv Rao had no experience in Northern Campaigns and failed to strike alliances with Jats and Sikhs. After Panipat, Abdali couldnt resist the Jats and Sikhs from taking over, or the Chinese Qing from occupying Kashgar and dominating the Uyghurs that still continues today.

Bhau was right candidate. The loss of Panipat is not Bhau's fault alone.

Bhau was first to understand the necessity to move from cavalry based war tactics to infantry artillery based formations. Marathas fought in disciplined manner for most of the day. Raghoba's northern campaign was economic disaster. furthermore, despite of insistence of sikhs and Jats, that man chose to return to pune for god know what reason. He was expected to stay put in North and protect Punjab. Shinde was on his way to take care of Bengal. raghoba brought loans of 60 lakh rupees. Bhau was very thrifty in business. In spite of the military loss, the campaign was not financial loss.

in spite of military loss, there was no loss of territory. Punjab was never under their stable rule. Raghoba had no direct experience of dealing with pathans. He was chasing them and had avoided direct confrontation with them. Bhau made a principled stand and did not leave north at mercy of Pathans, like his cousin raghoba did. Bhau had to pay for many mistakes of Raghoba. Abdali tried to invade India and did invade India thereafter but not successfully. Sikhs were not in position to help huge army of marathas. Jats were small zamindars. Marathas counted on help of Shia shuja against sunni najib for monetary and military help. at the least they expected his neutrality, given shuja's mother was very amicable and personal friend of peshwa nanasaheb. Abdali trapped in doab of ganga and yamuna and najib using him to threaten shuja did the trick. the final nail in coffin was the sermon by mullah shah wali and his call of jihad against kaafirs.

As official custodian of Mughal emperor, Marathas considered even afghanistan as part of India. There ar letters available from shah of iran offering an alliance with raghoba to decimate abdali, and offering region up to peshawar to Marathas and keeping Afg to himself. Raghoba replies him that Afg is part of India since ancient days. meanwhile abdali had consolidated, raghoba had become homesick, adina beg had died in lahore and dattaji was killed by najib at buradi ghat.

When it comes to good administration and stable governance (which is why bhau and vishwasrao were sent to north in first place - to colonize north), no match to Balaji bajirao, Bhau and Madhavrao peshwa in 18th century. they consolidated what bajirao won. Bhau's only fault was not leaving behind the families and womenfolk in Gwalior. This one single decision would have tilted the battle in maratha favour, in spite of all odds and local opposition. Abdali and bhau were not keen on fighting. Only person who was interested in this battle to happen was najib. This ganga valley based islamic power centre used marathas and afghans against each other for his benefit. Ultimately he did not succeed and was phucked by Sindhias. His son (i think) converted to Sikhism to escape the wrath of marathas.

[Rahul M]

@vishvak, I have been reading your posts and agree with you 100%.

There was something wrong with our ancient rulers for not going after the invaders to their homelands and put an end to their attacks for good. The invaders always lived to fight another day.

"They had better horses/chariots" is not a valid excuse. It's not like they had F-22 and we had MiG-21 onlee.

Whatever advantage they had, our rulers could have easily replicated or neturalized it if they put their minds to it. Ancient tech/strategy gap was not that huge. All they had to do was import horses, technicians, artists etc and improve the native defense/offense capacity.

sorry but you really have very little idea about warfare of that era. the mongol style military machine was virtually unstoppable. if anything we should be proud of our ancestors that they gave a much tougher fight than most. elsewhere most people just rolled over in front of the arab and then the turco-mongol military.

[Rahul M]

Atri ji, could you post your excellent analysis of panipat (which you posted earlier) at BR wiki ?
http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/Bharat-rakshak_Wiki