History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c33.s6.18

v3.c33.s6.18

The political ideas of the Turks and the Hindus were almost exactly the same. Both had no idea of representative government, though the Hindus may have had them in pre-Gupta days of rights of people or of responsibilities of kings. They knew only one form of government viz. the despotic and had no idea of a nation in the modern sense. There was no feeling of nationality or of patriotism. The kings became kings by heirship or by the favour of God manifested by giving success in battle. Neither the Turks of Mahmud nor the Hindus of Jaipal fought as the Germans and the French fought in the last European War under the high impulse of nationality and patriotism. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that a feeling of strong nationality which always prompts stubborn fighting gave the Turks the success which they invariably achieved; for such feeling never existed among the Turks who only fought for Mahmud. They were fighting not for a nation but for a king. No doubt the zeal of Mahomedanism supplied the place of patriotism and the religious fervour of the newly converted Turks and Afghans was a great factor in the success of Mahmud. But this does not constitute a novelty of ideas nor would it have been a cause of the downfall of the Panjab had it been opposed by an equally strong religious zeal of the Hindus. Lastly we do not see any novelty in the social manners of the Turks that contributed to the downfall of the Hindus. Even in manners as in ideas the Turks were practically like the Hindus who opposed them. The Hindus of the Panjab and Kabul then were flesh-eaters and not vegetarians and even at this day Panjab is less vegetarian than the other provinces of India. The Hindus were not beaf-eaters no doubt, but that can not, in our view, have contributed to any extent to the fall of Kabul and the Panjab.