- Constant low level pesant revolt against muslim rulers was noted by Peter Mundy, Manucci, Abul Fazl, Bernier, Jahangir, Kopf. (sItA-rAm-goel’s assessment here. )
(Dis)Unity
Effective disunited resistance
Very strong resistance to foreign invasion has been repeatedly observed. With regard to the Muslim invasions, it must be noted that for over a 1000 years, there was on average 1 battle every month between local resistors and Islamic armies. Even as proud civilizations from Iran to Indonesia fell, the native Hindu culture survived. Earlier invaders, such as the shAkas, huNas, yavanas were similarly checked. Empires such as the paramAras, the vijayanagara empire, the marATha empire repeatedly checked for many centuries, and were beginning to reverse Islamic invasion. Like the European crusades launched to conquer Palestine, similar efforts began to be observed late in the 18th century with the marATha and sikh confrederacies.
The above negates the common accusation of abject failure in the face of invaders.
Lack of a united fronts against invaders
Fragmentation of the land of the Arya-s (and more broadly pagans) into several competing polities resulted in these kingdoms short-sightedlyworking against their pagan neighbors by:
- allying with barbarians (eg. Islamic and Christian invaders)
- " In this sterile statecraft, centred on the politics of the maNDalayoni, one�s neighbour was always an enemy, and the enemy of an enemy always a friend! Hindu princes, therefore, failed to hang together in the face of a common calamity. In the event, they were hanged separately." [SRG]
- taking advantage of a kingdom’s conflict with barbarians to attack it. Examples -
- someshvara and co killing bhojarAja (who had undertook great expeditions against the muslim invasion) in battle.
- the gajapati ruler relentlessly scheming against his own son-in-law kRShNadevarAya, even as the latter was quarrelling with bahmani sultanates.
- fearing to send troops to aid kingdoms being attacked by barbarians, for the fear that their pagan neighbors will take advantage of the weakness.
Powerful empires/ frederations
The severe drawback from not having a united front against invaders was keenly felt by luminaries who faced the mlecCha-s such as chANakya (who did not see much promise in the gaNa city-states), mAdhava vidyAraNya, rAmadAsa (perhaps just as even kRShNa considered his yAdava-gaNa). So, at times of need, powerful empires did form and they proved to have a greater impact in resisting invaders (eg. mAurya-s under chandragupta, gupta-s under vikramAditya, marATha-s, to some extant sikha-s). Yet, to the extant these frederations had *hindu* competitors, they paid the usual fragmentation penalty.
Taking the battle into alien lands
The second need of the situation was a forward policy which would have taken the war into the heartland of Islam, instead of being fought over the length and breadth of Bharatavarsha. But the Hindus during this period were afflicted by a fortress psychology. They waited for the invader till he arrived at Panipat, or shut themselves into citadels which could be stormed or starved into surrender while the unprotected populace outside was slaughtered. Nor did they ever pursue and destroy the invader even when he was defeated and made of flee. If the Chaulukyas of Gujarat had pursued and destroyed Muhammad Ghuri and his hordes when he was defeated by them in his first expedition in 1178 AD, he would not have come back to Tarain in 1191 AD. Again, if the Chauhans had pursued and punished Ghuri after his defeat in the first battle of Tarain, there would have been no second battle of Tarain, and perhaps no more Muslim invasion of India, at least for some time to come. The effectiveness of a forward policy was demonstrated first by the Marathas under Shivaji, and later on by the Sikhs under Banda Bahadur. But that was against an Islamic state already established in India.
- [SRG]