History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s3.19

v3.c33.s3.19

But the historian cannot but observe that Hindus have always failed to exhibit that grip, that resourcefulness which brave and strong men are expected to exhibit when an adverse accident befalls them. We have already noted this defect in Vol. II (p. 246) and have tried to explain the strange behaviour of Indian armies which, often unbeaten, fly when an accident happens to the commanding king, by the fact that Indian soldiers in consequence of the absence of all feeling of nationality have no sense of patriotic self-interest in the success of the fighting. All the same, we may note this defect in Indian character (Hindu and perhaps even Mahomedan) viz. that Indians do not possess that doggedness of fight under adverse circumstances which distinguishes the western and notably the British soldier. There is no doubt that Mahmud possessed this quality so necessary in a commander. Like Shivaji he never was despondent when fortune seemed unfavourable and fought on stubbornly. Moreover, Mahmud clearly was a great general. Like Ahmadshah Abdali he had a reserve force of resolute and brave body-guards which the Ghaznavide kings and Mahmud particularly, maintained at a high level of efficiency and at great cost. Mahmud himself with this guard led the final attack at the proper moment like Ahmadshah Abdali and gained eventual success in this memorable battle which practically sealed the fate of the Panjab, if not of the whole of India.