History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c11.3

v1.c11.3

The question for the historian is why did the small kingdoms of India succumb to the Mahomedans in the 12th century? Why did they not live and develop into strong kingdoms like the states of Europe? It is usually suggested that the Indian kingdoms ought to have foreseen the danger of foreign invasions and that they should have laid aside mutual feuds in order to gather strength against them. It is argued, for example, that after the defeat of the Huns, under Mihirkula in 528 A. D. India was free from foreign invasion till the invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni about 1000 A. D., and she was free to work out her destiny. This involves not only the previous misconception that India was one country but also the further misconception that such foreign invasions could have been foreseen. In fact we usually look upon the condition of the seventh century, from our state of knowledge in the twentieth century. But the invasions of Mahmud could not have been foreseen by any the wisest man, in the seventh century. No body in those days or even later could have dreamt that the Turks, fired with the fanaticism of a new creed and cursed with the barbarism of new invaders, would devastate India in the 11th and the 12th centuries. Even the loss of Sind in the beginning of the 8th century could not have served as a warning. The conquest of Sind, in India, by the Arabs may fitly be compared to the conquest of Constantinople in Europe by the Turks. The Turks have remained in Europe like a thorn in the side of Europe for these five centuries in the same way as the Arabs remained in Sind for five centuries before the 13th. The Arabs from Sind molested the Hindus east, north and south much in the same way as the Turks harassed Europe in the west, north and south. Yet Europe never thought of laying aside her internal animosities and combining under one empire. Why should then the kingdoms of India have thought of combining under one sceptre to drive away the Arabs? Nay, the parallel goes much further. Mr. Sardesai accuses the Rāṣṭrakūṭas of having actually taken the assistance of these Arab foreigners in their fights with the Gurjaras. But it must be remembered that in advanced Europe the same thing was done and is being done. History tells us that Francis I of France excited the Turks against the Germans in his war with Charles V, Emperor of Germany, in the 16th century. And curiously enough the debt has been paid back in the present 20th century by the last Emperor of Germany by raising the Turks against the French and their allies although the latter are of the same religion, race and civilization as the Germans. The reason is, that in political struggles, even religion and race are not of much account. The Bulgars are at present fighting against the Russians though of the same race and even of the same religious church. We need not, then, feel wonder if the Rāshṭrakūṭas sought the assistance of the Arabs, against their own co-religionists. We must remember that the Gurjaras and Rāshṭrakūṭas formed two distinct kingdoms with distinct political interests. The real difference between Europe and India lies in the fact that while both the Gurjaras and the Rāshṭrakūṭas have eventually succumbed before the Arabs, the French and the Germans are still alive and not likely to succumb to the Turks. The real question, therefore, for the historian is why did the Gurjaras and the Rāshṭrakūṭas succumb? In other words why did the kingdoms in India not develop into strong nations? What was the political condition in the seventh and the preceding centuries which led to her decline and downfall? That is the question which we really have to solve and which requires to be carefully tackled in the light of western and easten history past and present.