History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c14.24

v1.c14.24

We cannot but pause here to reflect upon the conduct of the Buddhists of Nerūn and Siwistān. Indeed the verdict of history cannot but be that given by Giboon viz. that as Christianity enfeebled the Romans and was one of the causes of Rome’s downfall; so in India the spread and paramountcy of Buddhism was one of the causes of the fall of India’s independence. Of course Christianity has not enfeebled the Teutonic races, so has Buddhism not enfeebled the Mongolian races notably the Japanese. But as the tenet of Ahimsā or non-slaughter of living beings, together with the abandonment of animal food took strong root in India and became the supreme article of faith and conduct of the people martial spirit naturally declined. Cruelty has its dark side, but without cruelty there can be no martial spirit. The Budahist Harsha did succeed in establishing a widespread empire by his military achievements, but he was a meat-eater from his childhood though perhaps not to the end of his life. The Guptas who were orthodox Hindus and followers of the religion of animal sacrifice were of course a flesh-eating clan and during their days the middle class, the traders and agriculturists, the Vaiśyas so to speak were also carnivorous and were consequently as martial as the Brahmins above and the Śūdra population below them. It is hence that the Guptas of Magadha and the Vardhanas of Thanesar though Vaiśyas were able to drive away such ferocious foreign invaders as the Kushans and the Huns. But Harsha’s Buddhistic zeal and his imperial power succeeded in abolishing animal-slaughter and animal food from the land. The natural effect of this prohibition, working for nearly half a century, became visible among the middle classes of the country, the orthodox Brahmins and the strong Kshatriyas, however, evading the prohibition as well as the lowest classes. The middle class thus at the beginning of the 8th century was completely emasculated for ever (and it remains so to this day) and thus half nay more than half the population of the country was, when the Arabs came to India, as tame as sheep, only fit to be slaughtered by the ferocious Arabs. The Buddhists as we have seen openly declared that their article of faith was no slaughter and no fighting and we thus find at Nerūn and at Siwistān the people divided into two camps; those who did not want to fight and those who did. The former usually consisted of the agriculturists, the merchants and the artizans or the Vaiśyas and the quieter portions of the Śūdras, the middle class of the people so to speak. They were both averse to kill and afraid to be killed and they always sided with the Arabs when they found they were strong and likely to be victorious. The Brahmins and the Kshatriyas, however, fought vigorously. Bachchra and his Thakurs, the Chacha-nāma says, lost their lives “in trying to accomplish their sinful deeds”!!! The turbulent Jats too, though degraded by Chacha to the position of Śūdras fought valiantly. But as one-half of the population was cowardly and even favourable to the Arabs, Sind could not avert its fate. Fortunately at that very time Aryanism (we will not call it full Hinduism yet) or the religion of animal sacrifice revived elsewhere. Buddhism was conquered or driven into the background and the downfall of the rest of India was averted for three centuries more. Sind of course fell a prey to the Arabs and remained a Mahomedan province throughout the succeeding centuries of Indian history.