12-01-2006, 08:49 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Nov 30 2006, 02:58 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Nov 30 2006, 02:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
This above and other parts of the post are not correct. Did you read Hunter?
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61584[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said there was no central Hindu Monarchy which could plan the entire defence of Indian land mass. Hunter says the same thing and says each region kept fighting to defeat the Muslim rule. Only after the european modernisation that the Indian elite and masses were able to WAKEUP to create one central political front.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each state supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynasty in Sindh, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders (Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori) from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Southern India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the successor of Akbar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.
  The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.
  At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This above and other parts of the post are not correct. Did you read Hunter?
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61584[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said there was no central Hindu Monarchy which could plan the entire defence of Indian land mass. Hunter says the same thing and says each region kept fighting to defeat the Muslim rule. Only after the european modernisation that the Indian elite and masses were able to WAKEUP to create one central political front.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each state supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynasty in Sindh, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders (Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori) from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Southern India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the successor of Akbar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.
  The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.
  At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->