History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.15

v3.c33.s6.15

Sir Vincent Smith, without actually discussing the causes of the fall of the Panjab, suggests them in the remark ‘a new power, novel in religion, in social customs, ideas and methods of warfare appeared on the scene’. Superiority of arms and of discipline is one of the most potent causes of the prevalence of one nation over another, and it may be mentioned here that India was bound to be conquered by the British owing to their superiority in arms and discipline, their artillery and their battalions. But this factor did not exist in favour of the Mahomedans at this time. Firishta is guilty of anachronism when he mentions ‘tops’ (cannon) as being used by Mamud in the same way as he mentions Delhi and Aimer as opposing Mahmud, since cannon had no existence in the days of Mahmud as much as Delhi or Aimer. From the article “Gunpowder” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the following facts appear: 1 Gunpowder is believed to have been invented either by a German about 1345 or by Roger Bacon about 1225 A. D. 2 Gunpowder was not known to the ancient Greeks, Hindus or Arabs. They no doubt knew some incendiary process which they used in war but they did not know explosives and had neither guns nor cannon. 3 History does not record the use of firearms in India except at the battle of Panipat by Babar. We are thus assured that Mahmud had no firearms and relied on the same weapons of war swords, scimitars and lances, as the Hindus; and Mahomedan poet-historians expatiate on the merits of these only (Elliot Vol. II) as may be seen in Utbi or Baihaki. Indeed if there was superiority in weapons it was on the side of the Hindus. They knew it is clear, how to make good steel. The iron pillar at Delhi is a wonder even to the moderns (who are surprised at its manufacture in a way that it does not rust); and Indian swords were prized by the soldiers of Mahmud. Utbi poetically makes the sword of a Turkish soldier exclaim “I am a Hindu of a good family” (p. 216) thereby referring to the better steel of that weapon made in India, and we find that in the plunder of battle-fields swords and arms of the slain Hindu soldiers were objects of special attention.* We do not think there was any superiority of discipline on the side of the Mahomedans or that the Mahomedan army had been disciplined in the modern sense. Their horses might have been better as Afghanistan and Persia produce better horses as even Rājaśekhara notes. But Rajputana horses were not bad and imported Arabian and Persian horses could be had in plenty. In fact the Pratihāra emperors of Kanauj, coming from Rajputana as they did, were well-known for their cavalry and they were for that reason called Hayapatis. And the Hindus had one powerful arm in addition viz. the elephant which the Mahomedans did not possess. Even the Turks subsequently coveted this arm and developed it; for we see Sabuktagin and Mahmud using elephants against the Turks of Kashgar and using them with effect (Utbi). It is curious to note that while the Hindus could not use the elephants against the Turks of Mahmud, Mahmud could use the same elephants against the Turks of Ilek-khan with great effect. This is sufficient to prove the great generalship of Mahmud and the incompetence of India's commanders. How Mahmud made the Hindu elephant arm ineffectual we are not told by Mahomedan writers though we are told by Greek historians how Alexander discomfited the same arm of Porus. It may be noted that even after Sabuktagin and Mahmud had begun to use elephants in their armies their drivers remained Hindus. In fact during a succeeding reign at Ghazni the Hindu drivers of elephants were remiss in their duty and were severely punished (Baihaki). Strangely enough at the present day this art is wholly lost by the Hindus and elephant-drivers are all Mahomedans now (E. II 143).