Introduction

Hindus is the generic term for residents of Hindustan who as it stands professed the Hindu faith. It is a loose terminology as Hindu's had many sects and different schools of thought. But overall the entire sub-continent was inhabited by Hindus, though their practices differed. Hindus were also very fond of war and had an exclusive caste which was classified as a warrior caste, often referred to as the Kshatriyas.This had its plus and minus points. The plus was that a dedicated group was available  to fight for the nation. The minus was that arms were only handled by the Kshatriyas and in case they were defeated there was no second line of defense and invariably the enemy after the defeat of the Kshatriyas had a free run without any opposition. 

Field Marshal Viscount Bernard Montogomery in his " History of Warfare" devotes a chapter to " Warfare of the Hindus". He makes a telling observation.Monty, as he was popularly called has stated that the Hindus were very brave with a fatalistic contempt of death. But he has also stated that they disregarded the Principles of War and had no strategic sense.

War is a serious subject and has been studied by scholars since the dawn of history. The earliest exponent of the art of war was the Chinese scholar Sun Tzu. Later in the 19th century Baron Von Clausewitz enunciated his 10 Principles of War, which is now the Bible of warfare.

The bravery of the Hindus was legendary. Even poets eulogized it in what is known as the "Vir Gatha Kaal". Despite bravery and great courage the Hindus ( residents) of India were defeated by invaders who came from the North West, mainly from the Khyber Pass. It is worth mentioning here that even the invaders who defeated the Hindus  incorporated the very policies regarding warfare of the Hindus and succumbed to them. It was as if they were under a spell. This is beautifully brought out by Nirad C Choudhary in his book " The Continent of Circe"

Hindu Warfare

The first brush the Hindu army had with an invader was when Raja Purshottam ( Porus)met Alexander the Great in the Battle of Hydespes ( River Jhelum) in 327BC. The first casualty was unity of command as Porus was betrayed by the Raja of Taxila who went and joined the army of Alexander. Despite this Porus put up a creditable fight and stopped Alexander. Most historians now conclude that the elephant Corps of Porus unnerved the Greeks and Alexander decided to return back. He also gave vast lands to Porus and left.  This is a sign that in effect he was defeated by Porus. Greek historians who came along with Alexander have chronicled that the battle with Porus was the fiercest that Alexander faced.

A study of the battle shows that despite a tactical victory, Porus committed some strategic blunders. He was lucky that his elephant corps stopped the Greeks otherwise he would have been routed. Porus remained on the East Bank of the Jhelum and waited for Alexander to attack. The Greek general showed initiative and crossed the Jhelum and attacked Porus, something which Porus should have done. In this, he lost the element of surprise as well as the chance to go on the offensive. He was thus fighting a battle with one arm tied behind his back and both his sons were killed.

This, lack of initiative has been the bane of the Hindu military for all times.  When Mohammed of Ghazni invaded India 17 times, it is a matter of surprise that no Hindu Raja or general thought it fit to go and attack Ghazni in his den in Samarkand. It is a matter of pity that the Hindu army just sat and waited every year for the raid by Ghazni. This really makes sad reading. It proves that the Hindu Kings and generals had no strategic sense and even if a small force had been positioned at Khyber, Ghazni could have been halted. The second concerns absence of unity. When Ghazni advanced into India, no united Hindu force met him and it is on record that Raja Bhoj the most powerful Hindu King at that time never mounted a defence or joined other Hindus fighting Ghazni.

Another aspect that the  Hindus ignored was mobility. The Hindu army with its elephant corps was a sluggish outfit and a slow moving affair. In contrast, the Muslim army had mounted archers and there were hordes of them.This gave them mobility and it was not difficult for Muslim armies under a great general to cover 150-200 miles in aday and surprise the enemy.  Even the Muslims who settled in India got bogged down in creating elephant corps and also lacked strategic sense.

An example of the Battle of Panipat in 1526 between Babur and Ibrahim Lodhi is worth mentioning. Lodhi, the Muslim ruler of Delhi, knew that Babur was advancing across the plains of Punjab. His best course of action should have been to march forward to Punjab and face Babur at a place of his choice and surprise the Mongol. Sadly he did nothing and just waited for Babr at the gates of Delhi ( Panipat). He was defeated.

Analysis

What conclusion can we draw from ancient history? One can conclude that bravery is not a quality to win a war and along with it tactics and strategy are very important. Most rulers in India seemed to be unaware of the importance of  guarding the Khyber and other passes in the North West of the Hindu Kush mountains. They left the passes unguarded and showed a poor strategic concept of warfare. 

Hindu armies also lacked mobility and over-reliance on the elephant was their doom. In addition, the Hindus were  never united and in most significant battles like the Battle of Tarain between Prithviraj Chauhan and Mohammed of Ghor, Raj Jaichand went and joined Ghor. Such traitors abound in Indian history.

We can conclude that the Hindus lost because they never studied the art of war. Sadly even now,  Nehru never realised the concept of military power and was beaten by Mao. Indian must take lessons from the defeat of the Hindus a thousand years back and resove that such a state of affairs will never be allowed again.