Martial Traditions of the Hindus (Medieval Period)

Harshavardhana (606-647 A.D.) was the last imperial ruler of north and central India in the ancient period. His contemporary was Pulakeshi II who ruled over territories south of river Narmada. Both of them could not even collectively claim paramountcy over the whole of Indian subcontinent as during their period, there flourished about seventy regional rulers some of whom acknowledged the supremacy of either of the two monarchs. There was no such question as the defence of the frontiers of India by the united might of the Indian people, as the north-western and north-eastern frontiers were the frontiers of petty independent kingdoms.

Second wave of invaders from North-Western frontiers

The death of Harshavardhana about the middle of the seventh century A.D. coincided with the destruction of the Sassanid Empire at the hands of the Muslim Arabs. Once in possession of Persia (Iran) the Arabs began to launch expeditions against the frontier states of India, namely the kingdom of Afghanistan and Sindh.

Afghanistan known as Gandhara had remained a part of India since the time of Chandragupta Maurya who had conquered it from Seleukos Nikator in or about 305 B.C. During the time of Harshavardhana, it was ruled by a kshatriya king and in the 8^th century A.D., the northern part of Afghanistan called Kabul or Kabulistan was governed by the Tukhishahi rulers who followed Buddhist faith. In 865 A.D., Lalliya, a Brahmin minister of the last Turkishahi ruler, Lagaturman deposed his master and laid the foundation of the Hindu Shahi dynasty. In 870-71 A.D., Yaqub-ibn-Lais, the founder of Saffarid dynasty captured the fort of Kabul and Lalliya shifted his capital to Udbhandapura on the river Indus. Yaqub-ibn-Lais also had previously conquered during 867-70 A.D., the southern part of Afghanistan called Zabul or Zabulistan and ruled by the Rajputs of the Bhatti clan (according to J.L.Mehta).

Another frontier kingdom of India was Sindh which during the time of Harshavardhana was under his control and regained its independence after his death. After the death of Sahasi Rai II, the throne of the kingdom was captured by his Brahmana minister Chach and it was from his successor Dahir that the Arabs wrested Sindh in 712-13 A.D. The defeat of Sindh was due to lack of resources and unpopularity of its ruler among its population.

Difference between the early and later invaders from North-Western frontiers

Unlike the early invaders from the north-west like the Bactrian Greeks, Shakas, Kushans and Hunas, the later invaders like the Arabs, Turks, Afghans and the Mughals invaded India not only to conquer territories but to plunder India’s wealth and most importantly to impose Islam on its inhabitants. For instance Muhammad bin Qasim soon after conquering Sindh, asked its inhabitants to accept Islam and on their refusal, all adult males were put to death and their wives and children were enslaved. Also while the early invaders embraced Indian religions and Indianized themselves, the Muslim invaders had contempt for everything Indian and used every opportunity to erase Hindu cultural identities like temples, monuments, libraries, etc., and treated the Hindus as second class citizens and imposed several restrictions on them.

Expeditions by Mahmud of Ghazni

The fall of Kabul and Sindh was followed by nearly 17 expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni (in between 1000-1026 A.D.) which led to the end of Hindu Shahi dynasty in 1008 and plunder of Somnath in 1025-26 A.D.

Unpreparedness of the Hindus

For over a century and a quarter (1030-1175 A.D.) India enjoyed respite from foreign invasion. There was enough time for Indian princes and the public to shed their regional outlook and set their houses in order on national consideration as this was the only way to safeguard their national independence and protect their hearths and homes. But unfortunately this did not happen and torn by mutual jealousies, dissensions and other self-destructive tendencies, Hindus failed to take concerted action against the invaders and in consequence, were crumbled to dust in quick succession by the Turks in their second phase of invasion against Hindu kingdom.

Establishment of the Muslim power at Delhi

The infighting amongst the Tomars of Delhi, the Chauhans of Ajmer and the Gahadavalas of Kanauj during that period provided a golden opportunity for Muhammad of Ghori to defeat Prithviraj Chauhan III and capture Delhi after the second battle of Tarain in 1192 A.D. leading to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate.

The composition of the Sultanate army

The main army of the Sultanate consisted of the cavalry. Elephants also played an important role however infantry played only a secondary part. The battle array was simple. Troops were divided into the central, left and right wing, two flanking parties, the vanguard and the rear guard. In the front stood elephants protected by iron plates with towers on their back carrying warriors and archers. The elephants were preceded by four lines of infantry and archers with gaps for the cavalry to ride out and give battle to the enemy.

There were various types of mechanical devices which discharged missiles ranging from heavy arrows and arrows lit with fire, iron and fire balls, heavy stones, javelines, naphtha bottles and sometimes snakes and scorpions against the enemies.

Establishment of the Mughal rule in India

The disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate began under Ibrahim Lodi whose authority did not extend beyond Delhi, Agra, the Doab and parts of Bihar. Daulat Khan Lodi, the governor of Punjab who was not on good terms with Ibrahim Lodi, invited Babur to invade India and help him secure the throne of Delhi. This led Babur to invade India and in the battle of Panipat (April 1526), he defeated Ibrahim Lodi and conquered Delhi. Thus began the rule of the Mughals who ruled till 1857 when its last ruler was exiled by the Britishers.

The Military tactics of the Mughals

The battle array of Babar consisted of left wing and right wing, centre, advance guard, flanking party on the extreme right wing and extreme left wing and a reserve of picked horsemen. During siege operations mines were dug near the foot of fort walls and filled with gunpowder and exploded. Batteries were set up all round to fire with large iron and stone balls to batter the walls.

Akbar improved the system by the greater use of wheeled carriage for his artillery and the lengthening of the barrel of the hand musket. Due to the interest taken by Akbar muskets were improved and musketeers began to dominate the infantry arm and ultimately displaced the foot soldier armed with sword and spear in the Mughal army. Two other novelties introduced by Akbar were his complete disregard of the inclemencies of the weather and the brushing aside of all imperial formalities and paraphernalia during urgent military campaigns. Often he started on an expedition during the scorching days of May and June or in the midst of rain and floods of July and August. This confounded his adversaries who believed that campaigning was impossible during the months of the rainy season and that the armies could move out after Dasara only when the roads were beginning to become dry.

Introduction of fire-arms in India

According to A.L.Srivastava, Babar was the first to introduce fire-arms in India and to make use of them in his battles. Fire-works have been known in India since time immemorial, such as fire-balls, old type rockets (hawai), fire-wheels (Charkhi) and squibs (patakha), but there were not fire arms and were not an effective aid to the fighting troops. Babar brought light artillery pieces and guns which could be carried on the backs of camels. The Mughal army had a separate department for firearms under one chief styled Mir Atish or Darogha-i-Top Khanah. According to B.A.Saletore, somewhere between the years 1360-1420 A.D., the Hindus might have borrowed the idea of using guns from the Muhammadans whose acquaintance with cannon in about 1420 is confirmed by Niccolo de Conti. One inscription dated 1388 narrates the death of the match-lock man (kovikara) Devayya Nayaka of Muttuguppe by snake bite; his wife performed sahagamana.

Iqtidar Alam Khan writes that gunpowder came to India from China through varied agencies and channels of which perhaps, the most important were the Mongols who appeared to have introduced it in North-Western India during the second half of the 13^th century A.D. The Hawai/Ban, a rocket propelled by gunpowder was also introduced in North-Western India through contact with the Mongols in the second half of the 13^th century A.D. By 1366 this device came to be adopted as a weapon of war in the Delhi Sultanate, the Vijayanagara Empire as well as the Bahmani kingdom. Apart from China, fire-arms appear to have come to India through Egypt also where gunpowder artillery had already been introduced from Europe by the 1370s. But the effective use of firearms in open battle was perhaps made for the first time by Babur in the 1st battle of Panipat in 1526 where he deployed hand guns and artillery.

Based on literary and archaeological evidence, Richard Eaton and Philip B Wagoner in their article- Warfare on the Deccan Plateau 1450-1600, writes that artillery was known in the Deccan around 1460s and it was most likely that the Mamluks of Egypt furnished the Bahmanis with ordnance in exchange for textiles, spices and other commodities destined for western markets. According to them, Mahmud Gawan, the Vazir of Bahmani kingdom maintained close commercial and diplomatic relations with both Mamluk Egypt and the Ottomans and used to send agents to those countries from the strategic sea port of Goa. In the walls of the forts of Bidar, Kalyana and Raichur we can see gun ports (an opening in the wall of a fort for cannon to fire) which were constructed in between 1461 to 1482 A.D. This shows that the use of cannons in the Deccan took place around 1460. This is confirmed by literary records also. For instance Gaspar Correia, the secretary of the Portuguese Governor, Albuquerque records that in 1502 Portuguese naval squadrons were bombarded from the hilltop overlooking the port of Bhatkal. In a letter sent to the king of Portugal in December 1513, Albuquerque praised the ability of Muslim gunsmiths in Goa who had formerly served the Bijapur Sultanate and had fled after the Portuguese took the city, but were induced to return to Goa and continue their work for the Portuguese crown. Albuquerque even acknowledged that these gunsmiths had become “our masters in artillery and the making of cannons and guns, which they make of iron here in Goa and are better than the German ones”.

In 17^th century A.D., the big artillery was too unwieldy to be moved during a battle and it could fire only once in half an hour; so that it lay inactive on the ground after the first discharge (from a distance) was over and the men clashed together. During the battle of Raichur, the Vijayanagara army was led by Krishnadevaraya with an immense infantry but no artillery against the Bijapur forces who had a good artillery force. When the two armies met, the Bijapur forces fired their artillery leading to the breakup of the infantry lines of the Vijayanagara forces. At that time Krishnadevaraya moved forward with his cavalry and encircled the Bijapur artillery who, not having sufficient time to reload their cannon, abandoned their ordnance and took to flight.

Causes for the defeat of Hindus

According to A.L.Srivastava the causes for the defeat of the Hindus were – 

• North-West India, including Hindu Afghanistan and part of Sindh, was even before the seventh century A.D., isolated from the rest of the country, as the parts beyond the Indus were looked upon by the conservative elements of our society as inhabited by barbarians. In these regions a great intermixture of races, the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Parthians, the Kushans and Huns, who in course of time embraced Hinduism and had become one with the native Hindu population. This being repugnant to the rising conservatism in the country, the rest of India took little interest in the affairs of these people who could expect no help or sympathy from their countrymen and had to depend upon themselves and face the enemy single handed.
• Hindus during 8^th – 11^th century A.D. had developed a kind of narrowmindedness and believed that they were a chosen people and all other people were unfit to be associated with them. Al Beruni noted that “ the Hindus believe that there is no country like theirs, no king like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs”. He adds that the ancestors of the Hindus “were not as narrow minded as the present (11^th century) generation”. He was also struck by the fact that the Hindus did “not desire that a thing which has once been polluted should be purified and thus recovered”.
• During that period India was practically isolated from the rest of the world and owing to this fact Hindus became ignorant of the happenings, political, military and cultural in the outside world.
• The Arab and Turkish armies were better fighting forces on account of their complete equality and social solidarity as Islam had swept away all distinctions of caste and race and given cohesion to the various races of Central Asia and knit them together into a homogenous unit. Whereas the Indian troops were divided by caste, religion and diverse social practices.
• The common people were indifferent and did not cooperate with our soldiers and leaders as it did not matter to them who occupied the throne of Delhi.
• The invaders were mostly well-mounted archers and their horses and arms gave them indisputable military superiority over Indian troops. Also Hindus had failed to keep pace with the development of tactics that had taken place in Asia. These tactics consisted in employing mounted archers as light troopers for harassing and bewildering the enemy and causing confusion in his ranks by archery fire and then charging with armoured heavy cavalry. The squadrons of the invading army were divided into five divisions- right wing, central, left wing, advance guard and reserve and used to be drawn up in the form of a crescent. The enemy would not attempt to come close or make a general or frontal attack: but large bodies of the enemy mounted archers would hover round and ply their arrows against the Indian army that was posted in a long formation and divided into three parts, right, centre and left wing. The enemy would late in the day steal round the wings and would molest the fighting Indian army from round behind. In the moment of its confusion the Turkish horses would pour a cloud of arrows and the horns of the crescent would enclose the Indian rear.
• The Rajputs who fought against the Muslim invaders looked up the battle as a tournament to display their skill and chivalry while the Arabs and Turks fought to win and believed that everything was fair in war. The Arabs and Turks were inspired by a great religious enthusiasm which made them feel and believe that God had made them His instrument in spreading Islam while Hindus did not possess such inspiring ideology to sustain them.
• The chivalrous character of the Hindu was handicapped him in his fight against his unscrupulous foes. To the advantage derived by the opponents of the Hindus from the latter’s mutual jealousies and disunion was added also that of their (Hindu) unwillingness to do anything against the dictates of humanity or the demands of chivalry. Unlike other nations the Hindus did not believe in the maxim- “everything is fair in love and war”. If the chivalrous nature of the latter-day Hindu had only been tempered with political discretion, India would not have suffered as she had done.

According to Buddha Prakash the inability to hurl the Turks back for good was the peculiar socio-political condition prevailing in north India at that time like-

• The Samanta System made unified administration impossible over a long period.
• The training of Indian soldiers to operate on the plains in specific formation under centralized command made it difficult for them to fight with the tribals of the hilly areas on the frontier.
• The capture of the routes of Afghanistan by the Turks made contacts with the trans-Hindukush region difficult and precluded the possibility of diplomatic and commercial relations with Persia or Central Asia. The snapping of these ties also cut the sources of the supply of good horses.
• The religious bigotry of Islam led to social solidarity among its followers and canonized the craze for war and conquest and lionized raiders and plunderers as heroes and martyrs.
• By giving a pious slogan to nefarious lust and providing a gaudy ideology to brutality and treachery, Islam created a fighting apparatus of relentless potency which was far more than a match for the pacific refinement and tranquil morality of the Indian cultural tradition.
• According to Buddha Prakash, moral force or cultural prestige alone sometimes do not suffice to counter brute strength and striking power. Also organization and discipline are sometimes stronger among uncouth and barbaric people, united by the lure of plunder and pleasure, than among the cultured and refined peoples snivelled by theoretical niceties and doctrinal subtleties. Constant and all-sided vigilance and creativity are the price of freedom and success in every circumstance, Buddha Prakash opines.

Kuldip Singh says that the failure of the Hindus during the medieval era was due to passive defence. The medieval Hindu rulers failed to pre-empt Islamic invasion and also did not carry the battle to the invaders bases. Hence all the battles were fought deep inside India. Aggressive defence and pre-emptive action could have saved the Hindus.

According to B.P.Sinha, the real causes of the defeats of ancient Indians against the invaders from the north-western frontiers was due to the inferiority of Indian cavalry, the ineffectiveness of the foot soldiers and the absolute dependence on the king or the commander in the battle-field. The Indians lost because of inferior strategy, weaker morale and chivalrous code of war ethics compared to their more resolute enemies. Traditional methods of pitched battles and bookish military arrays in face of hit-and-run tactics proved an expensive proposition. Defensive strategy against aggressive warfare was not always beneficial, especially when the enemy was resolute and often unscrupulous.

Fallacy of race superiority

Modern European writers have diligently built up the theory that as a race the Hindus were and are inferior in fighting qualities in contrast to the Central Asian Arabs, Turks and other Islamic people and this in their opinion was the principal cause of the downfall of the Hindu states in Medieval age. V.A.Smith writes that the invaders were superior fighters, as they came from the cold climate of the north, were eaters of meat and were inured to warfare. This theory according to A.L.Srivastava is based on an uncritical acceptance of the probably biased accounts of medieval Muslim writers, so prone to magnifying the exploits of their compatriots and minimising those of their adversaries.

The fallacy of this theory according to A.L.Srivastava can be seen from the fact that the Arabs who were the first among the Islamic races to conquer an Indian province, Sindh, were the conquerors of many countries of Asia, Africa and Europe which included Egypt and other countries of North Africa, and Portugal, Spain and the southern half of France- countries situated in the colder regions far north of Arabia, eaters of meat and accustomed to warfare. It is also worthy of note that the Arabs completely vanquished the most ferocious races of Central Asia, such as the Mongols, Uzbeks and the Turks – the ancestors of heaven-born generals like Changiz Khan and Timur- races that were reckoned for centuries the best fighters in the whole of Asia and far superior to the Arabs in military qualities, horsemanship and ferocity. It was these Turks who after their conversion to Islam succeeded in conquering the Hindu kingdoms of Kabul and Zabul in Afghanistan and the kingdom of the Punjab which the Arabs had failed to subdue. Demolishing the theory of race superiority and the belief that military talent is measured in terms of size and bulk, A.L.Srivastava cites the example of the short-sized Marathas, who were despised in northern India in the time of Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb (17^th century) who later became an object of terror to the proud, tall and well-built Mughals and the ferocious Pathans so much so that Muslim chroniclers of the 18^th centuries like Ghulam Ali, Murtaza Husain and others not only paid tribute to Maratha daring but also openly avowed that ten Maratha soldiers were more than a match for twenty Pathan stalwarts.

The role of Rajputs in checking the Muslim invaders

The military history of north India from 8^th century A.D. onwards was dominated by the Rajputs who fiercely opposed the advance of the Arabs, Turks, Afghans and the Mughals.

Ethics of Rajput Warfare

Fighting was the favorite game of the Rajputs and they emphasized loyalty, devotion, valour, chivalry and death-defying rashness on the battle-field. The Rajput emphasized single combat for the display of individual bravery rather than collective training to maneuver as a body on the battle-field. For the Rajputs to escape from the battle-field or to become a prisoner of war were fates worse than death. Their motto was victory or death on the battle-field. When the Rajput forts were surrounded by the Muslims the Rajput women performed Jauhar (burning themselves on a pyre in order to prevent the enemy from dishonouring them) and the Rajput males came out to fight and die. Dharmayuddha for the Rajputs was always defensive and never offensive and was geared to establishing hegemony rather than territorial annexation.

The Rajput (Mewar State) Armoury

The Mewar state army consisted of five main divisions- infantry, cavalry, elephant and camel corps and in due course artillery. Infantry soldiers used swords, lances, spears with trishul and in due course matchlocks. Some of these soldiers wore armour and helmets. In cavalry the horses were caparisoned with steel and the soldier who rode it had two swords, besides bow and arrow, mace and battle axe. Except Rana Pratap and Raj Singh almost all rulers of Mewar led their armies on elephant back. After the battle of Khanwa, Mewar had a regular division of muskets and artillery called Topkhana. The rulers of Mewar built strong forts with bricks or stones. Armed soldiers equipped with bow and arrows and matchlocks were posted on the walls of bastions over which cannons were also placed.

Rana Pratap, pioneer in war strategies

Maharana Pratap has many firsts to his credit. He was the pioneer in following the ‘scorch earth policy’, so that the enemy could gain nothing by conquering his country. We know that the Russians followed the same policy, when Napoleon attacked their country, resulting in him losing half a million men. Secondly, Pratap believed in the maxim ‘one step backward, two step forward’ and never hesitated to withdraw from the battlefield if the situation turned overwhelming, so that he could recoup and re-launch his struggle. Normally the Rajputs used to fight to the finish and considered withdrawing from the battlefield as a cowardly act. For example, the Hindushahi ruler, Jaipal after his defeat and capture by Mahmud had committed suicide, as he could not bear the disgrace. This act had demoralized his people. Thirdly Pratap waged guerrilla warfare to browbeat the enemy. Surprise and night attacks were also the common features of Raj Singh’s military tactics.

Vijayanagara’s role in checking Muslim expansion

The credit of checking the political expansion of the Muslim invaders in the south goes to the Vijayanagara kingdom established in 1336 A.D. The strength of the army especially its infantry was enormous and astonishing in the Vijayanagara period as compared to the earlier periods. This shows the high degree the country was organized for military purposes unlike anywhere else in India during the later medieval period. The Vijayanagara army was made up of infantry, cavalry, elephants and artillery and a transport corps.

Ferishta speaking of the Vijayanagara army says that the Karnataki infantry “values their lives but little, were quite naked and had their bodies anointed with oil to prevent them from being easily seized”. According to Nuniz, Vijayanagara brought 13,000 horses every year from Ormuz by spending enormous sums of money.

Some of the features characterising the army life of that period were-

• Annual military review being held at the close of the great Mahanavami festival during which the king examined the troops.
• Incitement of soldiers to action through discourses and speeches by kings and priests and
• The encouragement given to the soldiers by the king who presented them with precious ornaments and offered them personally betel nuts and leaves.

Garudas, a corps of special bodyguards

In Karnataka from the time of the Ganga dynasty till the Vijayanagara period, we come across instances of body guards putting an end to their lives at the death of their lord. These bodyguards identified themselves with the very life and aspirations of their overlord and were called Garudas. At the time of the coronation of the king his loyal followers used to voluntarily take a portion of the rice prepared for the king on the occasion and would take a vow to burn themselves when the king was dead or slain. This was something like a male form of the female practice of self immolation, evident in sati or sahagamana. The Garudas displayed their valour, reckless of their own lives in defence of the king and country.

Contribution of the Marathas to the Hindu cause

Lack of new recruits from Muslim nations and the threat of Mughals had led the Mohammadan kingdoms in the Deccan to recruit Hindus in various administrative posts and as a result Hindus, especially the Marathas occupied important positions in the Muslim kingdoms like Golconda, Ahmednagar and Bidar and had gained administrative and military experience. All that the Hindus lacked was a leader and the arrival of Shivaji heralded a new era of Hindu resistance against the Muslim rulers of Deccan and also against the Mughals.

The Maratha mode of warfare

During the time of Shivaji his infantry consisting of Mawlas and Hetkaris would attack the enemy and retire to their inaccessible haunts where cavalry could not pursue them. Their arms consisted of swords, dagger, spears, bows and arrows and when possible matchlocks. Shivaji had no use of the cavalry in the hilly country and in the inaccessible forest of the Sahyadri range. His numerous forts needed a large force of foot-soldiers and so for the first fifteen years of his career, Shivaji mainly recruited, equipped and trained infantry divisions. Till the end infantry bore an equal proportion to the cavalry, one lakh infantry and one lakh cavalry. After his victory over Afzal Khan, Shivaji devoted himself to the raising of cavalry which was needed for far ranging attacks and swift raids in the enemy territories.

After Shivaji, the Maratha army underwent a radical change. The monarchy was eclipsed and the chief executive authority first passed to the Pratinidhi and then to the Peshwa. A number of chiefs raised their own forces and fought the Mughal officers wherever they encountered them. Peshwa Balaji Vishwanath offered to recognize the conquest made by these chiefs in lieu of them accepting Shahu’s leadership and surrendering to him a small part of their recoveries and also to take a supervisory staff from the centre. In this way the feudalization of the Maratha State began after Shivaji.

The Maratha army was known for its extreme mobility. They consisted mainly of cavalry without encumbrance in the form of baggage, tents, supplies or artillery. Also they avoided pitched battles as far as possible. Vast hordes of horsemen marched long distances with extreme speed and secrecy, dispersed for foraging or bewildering the enemy and yet combined for striking a blow. This mobility also enabled them to break off an engagement at any time they choose and vanish to a safe distance. The Maratha soldiers were hardy peasants, subject to all kinds of inclement weather, performed deeds of extreme endurance and valour which astonished the world. No intoxicants or drinks were permitted to the officers and no dancing girls were allowed in the camp. Sudden surprise of an unprepared enemy by vast bodies of light cavalry and complete envelopment of his position were the secret of success of the Maratha system of warfare.

Hindu response to Muslim invaders

For about three centuries and a half beginning with the end of 12^th century and ending with the beginning of the 16^th century A.D., north India remained engaged in a death struggle with the Turks. Though the Turks retained possession of Delhi and a part of the Punjab, the whole of Rajputana was independent and many Hindu princes in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh enjoyed sovereign power. The Muslim rulers of Delhi were often reduced to such straits by the Hindus that except a semblance nothing of real sovereignty remained with them. The extent of their power and precarious nature of their rule is fully exposed by Ziauddin Barani in his work- Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, which says that during the rule of Balban ‘The western gates of the city of Delhi were shut at afternoon prayers (5.p.m) and no one dares to go out of the city in that direction after that hour’. Due to the internal dissensions in the Hindu States and their mutual recriminations or jealousies gave opportunities to these Sultans of Delhi to secure loot or make a vain display of military power. It was only in 1300 A.D. that the Turks were able to penetrate the Deccan and south India. But the establishment of Vijayanagara kingdom checked the spread of Muslim political power south of river Krishna. In between 1510 to 1565 A.D., the rulers of Vijayanagara, Krishnadevaraya and Rama Raya held sway over the Muslim kingdoms of Bijapur, Golkonda, Bidar and Berar. Earlier Kumara Kampana, the Vijayanagara princes had extinguished the Turkish rule over Madurai. Even earlier rulers like Harapala Deva, Kampila Deva, Pratapa Rudra II , Hoysala Ballala III, Prolaya Nayaka and Kapaya Nayaka had challenged the Turk’s domination over south India.

It was only during the time of Akbar (1556-1605 A.D.) that a Muslim State in the real sense of the term came into existence in India and remained intact for two centuries. But the founding, rearing up and the maintenance of this empire was mainly due to the co-operation and the active help of the Hindus. According to Colonel Tod, the Mughals were indebted for half of their conquests to the swords of the Rajputs. When this support of the Hindus was withdrawn, the Mughal Empire crumbled to pieces like a house of cards.

Another factor which led to the decline of the Mughals and the Muslim kingdoms of Deccan was the resistance of the Marathas under Shivaji. Especially after the death of Sambhaji, the Marathas commenced a people’s war which exhausted Aurangzeb’s treasury and compelled him to be on the defensive. Under the Peshwas, the Marathas spread their influence till Attock in the north-west and reduced the Mughal Emperor into a mere figurehead. Even after their defeat at the battle of Panipat in 1761 A.D., the Marathas speedily reasserted their complete supremacy over the whole of India including the Punjab, Bengal and Rajputana and would have driven out the last representatives of the Mughals had not the English appeared. It was the English who prevented the Hindus from finally consolidating their power and sweeping away the remnants of Mughal power from Delhi, Lucknow and the Deccan. That the Hindus after two centuries of Mughal rule not only regained their independence but established their predominance in the country shows the vitality of the Hindu race.

The Tenacity of the Hindus

A.L.Srivastava says that no people in any part of the world offered such a prolonged and tough and successful resistance to the aggression of the Arabs and the Turks as did the Hindus of the medieval age. Whereas many countries of Asia, Africa and Europe succumbed to the Arab onslaught, each after a few years resistance, Sindh yielded only after nearly 75 years of struggle. Hindus of Afghanistan fought for 220 years and Punjab for 156 years. The value and extent of the success of the Indian resistance against the Muslim invaders can be appreciated from the fact that whereas the Arabs and to a lesser degree the Turks, completely exterminated the religion, the culture and the way of life of the people whom they subjugated they failed in absorbing Hindus and blotting out their religion and culture.

Reference

1. P.C.Chakravarti – The Art of War in Ancient India, The University of Dacca, Dacca
2. N.Subrahmanian – Sangam Polity, Asia Publishing House, 1966
3. V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar – War in Ancient India, Macmillan & Co Ltd, 1944
4. Bimal Kanti Majumdar – The Military System in Ancient India, The World Press Ltd, Calcutta, 1955
5. G.N.Pant – Studies in Indian Weapons and Warfare, Army Educational Stores, New Delhi, 1970
6. V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar – Indian Martial Tradition, The Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute, Vol – III, part- 3-4, May-August, 1946
7. O.P. Singh Bhatia – The Imperial Guptas, Surjeet Book Depot, Delhi, 1962
8. P.N.K.Bamzai – Culture and Political History of Kashmir, vol-I, Ancient Kashmir, M.D.Publication Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1994
9. Rama Shankar Tripathi – History of Kanuaj to the Muslim conquest, Motilal Banarsidass
10. Buddha Prakash – Evolution of Heroic Tradition in Ancient Punjab, Punjabi University, Patiala, 1971
11. B.P.Sinha – Elephants in Ancient Indian Army, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol-18, 1955
12. A.L.Srivastava – The Sultanate of Delhi, Shiva Lal Agarwala & Co (P) Ltd, 1961
13. A.L.Srivastava – The Mughul Empire, Shiva Lal Agarwala & Co (P) Ltd, 1986
14. J.L.Mehta – Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (1000-1526 A.D.), Sterling Publishers, New Delhi
15. A.Sankara Rao – Hindu India from Tallikota (1565) to Shivaji Rise (1660), The Quarterly Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, vol-2, 1927
16. Har Bilas Sarda – Hindu Superiority, Ajmer, 1906
17. Speeches and Writings: Har Bilas Sarda, Ajmer, 1935
18. B.A.Saletore – Social and Political life in the Vijayanagara Empire, vol – I, B.G.Paul & Co Publishers, Madras, 1934
19. R.S.Mugali – The Heritage of Karnataka, Satyasodhana Publishing House, Bangalore, 1946
20. Richard Eaton, Philip B Wagoner – Warfare on the Deccan Palteau 1450-1600: A Military Revolution in Early Modern India, Journal of World History, vol-25, No.1, March 2014
21. Iqtidar Alam Khan – Gunpowder and Firearms Warfare in Medieval India, Oxford University Press, 2004
22. V.G.Dighe and S.N Qanungo – Administrative and Military System of the Marathas in R.C.Majumdar, Edited- The Maratha Supremacy, The History and Culture of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1958
23. Ravindra Kumar Sharma – The Military System of the Mewar (Udaipur) State (ca.800 to 1947 A.D.), Central Asiatic Journal, vol-30, No ½, 1986
24. R.C.Majumdar Edited, The Delhi Sultanate, The History and Culture of the Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1967
25. Jadunath Sarkar – Military History of India, M.C.Sarkar & Sons Private Ltd, Calcutta, 1960
26. Kaushik Roy – Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, 2012
27. E.D.Kulkarni- The Dhanurveda and its contribution to Lexicography, Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, vol-14, No.3. December 1952
28. U.P.Thapliyal – Military Honours and Awards in Ancient India, ABORI, vol – 56, No:1/4, 1975
29. P.K.Gode – The mounted bowman on Indian battle fields- from the invasion of Alexander (326 B.C.) to the battle of Panipat (1761 A.D.), Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, vol-8, 1947.

Martial Traditions of the Hindus (Ancient Period)

There are two instincts which lie deep down in man’s nature. One is the instinct of self-preservation, the other that of self-expansion. Right through the ages, man has always fought in response to one or other of those two basic facts of his nature. At first man fought against man, then one clan against another and still later one state against another. This process continues even today and India was no exception to this general rule.

Martial spirit of the Hindus

It was in the epic age that the foundations of Indian martial tradition was truly laid. The ideal of the hero laid down in the Mahabharata is as follows: “Fame is all that one should acquire here. That fame can be acquired by battle and by no other means” (ix.5.29). “Death on the battlefield, while fighting in accordance with the custom of the Kshatriya is welcome. Undergoing such a death, a person enjoys eternal happiness in the other world” (ix.3.53). Duryodhana says,- “The death of a Kshatriya on his bed is highly sinful. He is no man who dies miserably borne down by disease, so I shall now fight a righteous battle and repair to the domains of Indra (svarga), obtaining the companionship of those who have attained to the highest bliss.

Heroic wives and mothers

The Sangam literature provides information about warfare in the Tamil country. After the battle was over, it was the custom for the wives of heroic soldiers to enter the field in search of their husbands. When once a wife saw her husband in a pool of blood with darts struck on his breast and about to die, she drew back the weapon and drove it into her body so that she may not survive him. Still another custom was for the woman to closely embrace the dying head of her husband to her breasts and forehead and continue in that state of sadness until the last breath of her life went out.

Tamil land could boast of not only heroic housewives but also of heroic mothers. In works like Purananuru a mother sent her only son to the battlefield with the words- “your father and grand-father fell heroically in the battle. My hope and prayer is that you should follow their example. Go and fight to the end”. In another instance a mother heard the news that her son lost his courage in action and had retreated, her blood boiled with indignation. She vowed that if that were a fact, she would cut off her breasts with which she suckled him. With this determination she went to meet her son with a sword in hand but could not find him. Later she found her son’s body cut into two. At this her happiness was greater than that she had at his birth.

An invincible army

Huien Tsang who visited Karnataka in 641 A.D. describes its people as proud, spirited and warlike, grateful for favours and revengeful for wrongs. Speaking of the generals says that when a general loses a battle they do not punish him but present him with women’s clothes so that he is driven to seek death for himself. The soldiers, it is said, used to go to the battlefield intoxicated. The bravery of Kannada people and their Kings was almost proverbial in medieval India. The Chalukyan army was known as ‘Karnatabala‘ and described as invincible (ajeyam).

An exclusive warrior community

The element of permanence and endurance in Hindu culture is their genius to set apart a whole community for warfare. This was the Kshatriya caste, also the ruling caste. If any member of another community became a king, he was given Kshatriyahood and consecrated as a ruler. Every Kshatriya was a knight by himself who fought relentlessly to save his country and religion. By having a separate warrior caste the peace of the country or communities engaged in other pursuits of life was not affected and the normal life went on.

From the very childhood a Kshatriya was trained for war and teachers skilled in the use of arms imparted instruction in it to the pupils in their forest retreats. Archery, club-fights, sword-contests, horsemanship and charioteering were the main items in this course. The ashramas of teachers and sages in forests were thus military academics humming and throbbing with the activities of youth cadets.

While it is largely true that only the warrior caste fought battles, sometimes soldiers were recruited from other communities also if the war prolonged or if resources in men and material were diminishing. These were mercenary soldiers who were hired for a particular purpose and later disbanded.

War ethics of the Hindus

The Mahabharata classifies warfare into two categories- Dharma Yuddha (just war) and Kuta Yuddha (unjust war). The concept of Dharma Yuddha in Hinduism is for the protection of a kingdom’s subject and is directed against evil or injustice, whether they are our own people or aliens. The Dharma Yuddha for Hindus was not like the jihad of Islam and the crusade of Christianity as there is no justification in the Dharma Yuddha for war against foreigners of other faiths. In Hindu martial traditions, war is to be resorted to only as a last option when all the other paths are closed like Saama (peaceful conciliation), Bheda (creating internal dissension among the enemy camp) and Daana (the enemy camp to be won over through bribery). It was only then the last option of Danda (force) was resorted.

In Arthasastra three kinds of war are mentioned, Dharmavijaya (righteous warfare), Asuravijaya (unrighteous warfare with no regards to the laws of war) and Lobhavijaya (due to greed of territory, women and property). The last two are condemned in unequivocal terms.

Some of the laws followed by the Hindu warriors were – not to molest non-combatants, weaponless, defenceless, disabled, women and children and those retreating. Also temples and other places of worship, corn fields, fruit and flower gardens were left unmolested. Megasthenes says- “whereas among other nations it is usual in the contests of war to ravage the soil and then reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger from the combatants.

In ancient India war affected only the war department of the state and the warrior class. Trade and commerce was unaffected by the wars that were fought now and then. A kingdom conquered and a king vanquished meant no disturbance to the age-long civil administration of the kingdom. Often the defeated kings were reinstated, and the old administration was allowed to exist so long as that king acknowledged the sovereignty of the emperor by tribute and other means. If the enemy king had met with his death in battle, his son or nearest relative was installed on the throne in terms of subordinate alliance. This was the nature of imperial conquest and imperial rule in ancient India.

Unique martial customs in south India

The Tamils honoured an institution known as Nadukal which means ‘the planted stone’ or ‘Virakkal’ (the hero stone). In honour of the heroes who had fallen in battle a memorial stone or a sepulchral monument was set up. It was but a humble and simple stone generally planted on the roadside like the mile-stone, perhaps on that stone the name of the dead hero was inscribed, peacock features were laid as wreaths on it and garlands were placed on it. An elaborate but primitive ritual was associated with the planting of the stone. It was customary for people who sought victory in war to worship the Nadukal to bless them with victory. It seems that this institution of Nadukal or hero stone was in vogue till at least the 10^th century A.D. in the Tamil and Kannada countries where several inscribed hero-stones bearing dates in the 9^th and 10^th century are found.

Kavalmaram, the tutelary tree

There was another institution peculiar to the Sangam Tamils. The kings, the major ones as well as the feudatories maintained with great care a tree in the courtyard of their palaces or in some central place in the town or in a well protected spot. It was a totemic symbol and was associated with the ruling dynasty from ancient times so that in all probability even the kings did not know why these particular trees were associated with them, their family and their town. It was therefore called tutelary tree, a Kadimaram or a Kavalmaram. If that tree was cut, it was tantamount to the king being defeated and driven out. If the enemy king tied up his elephant to the Kavalmaram, it was the biggest insult he could offer to the vanquished king. This tree was a powerful irritant and a standing invitation for war.

Incentives to warriors

In the Vedic age soldiers were granted share in the loot, the share in the loot was an incentive for the warrior. In the Arthasastra, award for slaying the king of the enemy entitled one hundred thousand Panas and fifty thousand for slaying the commander-in-chief and thousand for killing a horse. The Shukraniti enjoins that the rulers should give due awards for the soldiers for gallant deeds in the form of wealth and power. Distinguished military service was honoured with the land grants and relief in taxation. Acts of gallantry and distinguished services were also honoured by conferring the emblem of royalty such as titles, palanquin, throne, etc., on the warriors. They were also elevated to higher rank.

Four-fold division of the army

During the Vedic period the army consisted of Patti (foot soldiers) and Rathins (chariot warriors). During the post-Vedic period the army attained a four-fold division with the coming into use of horses and war elephants. Hence the four-fold army; Caturanga-bala came into vogue. About the 7^th century A.D., the war chariots fell into disuse and the four-fold army in actual practice became three-fold. But the convention of Caturanga- bala continued intact and is referred to both in later literature and inscription.

Infantry

The willing and able- bodied members of the various tribes must have constituted the infantry of the Rigvedic period and they played a role subordinate to the chariots in open battle. Their weapon was a bow and arrow. The foot-soldiers carried a bow made of equal length with the man who bears it. This they rest upon the ground and pressing against it with their left foot, thus discharge the arrow having drawn the string back ward. Lance, spears, swords, axes and sling stones were also used by the foot-soldiers.

Some of the duties of the infantry were to fix camps, supply water, carrying arms and weapons and carrying away the wounded and dead troops from the field of battle, supervise the work of free labourers engaged in military service, protect the treasury, arsenal and other stores and make arrangements for the formation of battle arrays.

The foot-soldier was indispensable for battles fought in forests, hilly and difficult terrains, inaccessible to chariots. They also played an important role in scaling the walls of the fort and in storming it; in surveying the enemy territory and as bodyguards of the kings. Allurement of loot must have been an incentive to popular military service. Foot soldiers were probably drawn from all sorts of people including foreigners. In the infantry it was the quantity rather than the quality that counted.

Chariots

Chariots were used in warfare from very remote times. The chariots were two wheeled, four wheeled and eight wheeled. The chariot usually contained two men, the driver and the warrior. They used to fight with bows and arrows and sometimes used swords or maces. There are different terms like Rathin, Suta and Sarathi used to denote the charioteer whose chief duty was to lead the war chariot and to shield his warrior. Great warriors never fought on horseback and rarely on elephants; they preferred to fight in chariots and loved to be called Rathin, Maharata, Atiratha. The Arthasastra mentions a special officer called Rathadhaksha (Superintendent of Chariots) to supervise the chariots of the state. In addition to chariots drawn by horses there were others drawn by asses and bulls.

Defects of chariots

Chariots could not be used in hilly tracts and if the ground became slippery by incessant rains, the chariots got stuck in the mud and became immovable from their great weight. This is what happened in the battle of the Hydaspes. Gradually the use of chariots in war declined and we have no mention of it in Bana’s Harshacharita (7^th century A.D.) in his description of Harsha’s army.

The Elephants corps

The use of elephants in war appears to be a distinctive feature of the military system of ancient India. In the Mahabharata war the main reliance is placed on cars (rathas) drawn by horses but the elephants are also used in the war. In the battle that ensued elephants rushed against elephants, car warriors against car warriors.

The elephants marched in front of the army clearing the way of trees and shrubs, helped the army to cross rivers, protected the flanks of the army, broke down the enemy phalanx and were used in breaching the defence of the enemy’s fort gates. The elephants also used to carry food supplies and armaments from one place to another. It created havoc in the enemy camp by its roaring shouts and mad and furious onslaughts. Compared to a chariot or a horse, an elephant could accommodate a much larger number of combatants on its back.

The mainstay of the Maghadhan army was its elephant wing before and after Chandragupta Maurya. By the time of Alexander’s invasion the elephant division had become the main prop of the Indian military system and it had superseded chariotry in this context. Porus fought Alexander from the biggest elephant’s back. Chadragupta Maurya maintained the largest elephant division consisting of 9000 war elephants. The Guptas also maintained an elephant corp. The Hindu kings continued to have a soft corner for an elephant division down to the 15^th century A.D. and Vijayanagara army also included an elephant division. The Shukraniti which is placed between 14^th and 16^th century A.D. also refers to elephant forces under the Gajapatis.

Its shortcoming

The elephant division was a slower moving force compared to the cavalry and the largeness of the animal made it an easier target for the archer. To frighten the elephants and make it turn back on their own side, the enemies used to throw naphtha balls at them. It was usual for kings and generals to ride on elephants during battles, as being visible they could be a source of inspiration to their troops. But this made them targets of attack by the enemy. And as battles were decided by the fate of the leader and it was believed that if the king or general were killed, his army would give up the contest and in a very short space of time melt away altogether. For instance Muhammad-bin-Qasim ordered his naphtha throwers to discharge their naphtha arrows into Dahir’s howdah as he was visible and set it on fire. This produced confusion in the Hindu army. Similarly in 1008 A.D., the elephant carrying Anandapala became unruly from the effects of naphtha balls and flights of arrows, turned and fled. This produced a panic among the Hindus who, believing themselves deserted by the king, gave way and fled also. After the introduction of fire-arms and the gradual extension of their use, elephants cease to be of any value in the fighting line of battle.

Cavalry

The horse was never regarded in ancient India as a superior fighting unit and elephants and chariots occupied a position higher than cavalry. Both the Puranas and the epics agree that the horses of the Sindhu and Kamboja regions were the finest breed and that the services of the Kambojas as cavalry troopers were requisitioned in ancient wars. The cavalryman was armed with an arrow or spear or sword. Before marching to battle the horses were made to drink wine. Arthasastra mentions a State Superintendent of horses (Ashvadhayaksha).

The cavalry was used to pursue the retreating enemy, to cover the flanks of the army, to effect speedy communications with the various parts of the army, to break through the obstacles on the way and to pierce the enemy rank from the front and the rear. It also obstructed movements of supplies and reinforcements to the enemy.

In ancient India cavalry never came to occupy the front rank in the army organization. As in the time of Porus, so in the time of Prithviraj Chauhan much greater reliance appears to have been placed upon elephants than upon the horse. And as in 4^th century B.C., so in the 11^th and 12^th century A.D., the superiority of foreign horsemen once again decided the fate of India. Some of the most brilliant military triumphs in India by Mahmud Ghazni and Muhammad Ghori were won by the skillful use of a numerous and well-trained cavalry. Lack of good horses of indigenous breed and ignorance of breeding foreign horses must have proved a serious obstacle to the development of a first-rate cavalry system in ancient India.

Navy

The Mauryas had maintained a naval department and we have testimony from Megasthenes that the navy was under a special officer called the Superintendent of Navigation and he is referred to as navadhyaksha in Arthasastra. The Guptas also maintained a naval force. The Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta refers to his conquest of several islands. According to the Kashikudi Plates, Pallava rulers like Simhavishnu and Narasimhavarman I led expeditions to Ceylon and Nagapatam and Mamallapuram appears to have served as naval bases during the days of the Pallavas. Likewise the Badami Chalukyas maintained a naval fleet by which Mangalesha was able to send an expedition to the island of Revati and Pulakeshi II conquer Puri. The Cholas maintained a strong and powerful navy which was useful not only for carrying extensive commerce with foreign countries but also for conducting military expeditions. Rajaraja Chola I sent expeditions to Ceylon and Lakshadweep while Rajendra Chola I to Ceylon and regions near places like Sumatra, Malay Peninsula, Burma and Nicobar island. The Vijayanagar rulers also maintained a naval fleet.

Camel corps

During the seventh and eighth century A.D., the use of camels for commissariat purpose became common among the armies operating in the desert of Rajasthan. Oxen, mules, carts, elephants and porters were used for carrying baggage. The commissariat officials stored food in advance in the villages and the town through which the royal army passed. The villagers had to provide oxen and grains for the royal army. Blacksmiths accompanied the army for the purpose of mending and preparing weapons. Others who accompanied the army were diggers, carpenters, engineers, hunters acquainted with forests and physicians.

Six-fold division of the army

Besides the above classification of the army into four-fold, there was also in vogue a six-fold division, presumably based on the area or source of recruitment. The earliest reference to the six-fold division occurs in the epics and Arthasastra. The six-fold division were-

• Maula bala – hereditary troops
• Bhritya or bhritak bala – hired or mercenary troops
• Shreni bala – troops of the trade or merchant corporation
• Mitra bala – troops belonging to an ally
• Amitra bala – troops belonging to an enemy or deserters of the enemy’s army and
• Atavi bala – militia of the wild tribes

Military units

The Hindu army was divided into Patti, Senamukha, Gulma, Gana, Vahini and so on and these divisions roughly correspond to our modern battalions, regiments, companies, etc. Of these Patti meant one chariot, one elephant, three horses and five foot-men. This was the smallest unit of the army. The next Senamukha meant three chariots, three elephants, nine horses and fifteen foot-men.

Vyuhas or battle arrays

Kautilya describes different Vyuhas; arrays or deployment or formation of troops in a specified manner- those formed like a staff (danda), a snake (bhoga), a circle (mandala) or in a detached order (asamhata). Sukracharya deals with Shakata (cart like), Makara (crocodile), Vajra (thunder) and Chakra (circle) arrays. These are also described by Kautilya but Shukracharya also introduces the needle array and the pigeon array.

Weapons of War

Weapons can be divided functionally into

• Weapons for thrusting like tridents, spears,dagger etc.
• Weapons for slashing or cutting like swords, axes, etc.
• Weapons for smashing like mace, etc.
• Projectiles like arrows, javelins, fire-arms, etc.

Bow and arrows

Of all the weapons the bow has a continuous history from Vedic times till the beginning of the 19^th century A.D. even after the introduction of aeroplanes and fire-arms. The use of the bow persisted throughout the 18^th century. It was then considered a national weapon and the heroism was invariably associated with proficiency in handling this arm. At the time of Mahabharata war, proficiency in archery was considered as a necessary qualification for princes and soldiers. Naturally the code of rules regarding archery was composed and with the importance attached to the bow, the literature on it began to develop. E.D.Kulkarni gives the name of some twenty works composed on Dhanurveda (archery). The old manuals on Dhanurveda were concerned not only with archery but with the preparation and use of other weapons also like spears, javelins, clubs, discs, etc.

All ancient Indian warriors were expert shooters with the bow. For instance Arjuna of the Mahabharata. During the battle of hydaspes, the slippery state of the ground hindered the Indian infantry from making full use of their bows which they were accustomed to draw after resting one end upon earth and pressing it with the left foot. During the famous battle of Panipat between the Marathas and Ahmed Shah Abdali an arrow fired from a mounted bow-man struck Vishwasrao killing him which had a disastrous event.

Swords

The superiority of the sword in the battle field was established on the grounds that if the supply of arrows was exhausted, if the bow is broken or the warrior is dislodged from his chariot or horse, the sword alone is the resort of such a warrior surrounded by the army of the enemy which he can kill whether mounted on an elephant, chariot or a horse.

The Nayakas (Hindu chieftains of south India) during 16^th century A.D. disdained fire-arms and guns and regarded swords and lances as honourable weapons. Guns were regarded as weapons of weaklings or cowards for those who refused to face danger close-up. The Marathas fought the Afghans with lance and sword while the latter with musketry and archery.

Forts

One kind of land fight was siege warfare. The ancient kings attached very great importance to fortresses for they served as the main base to defend the kingdom against the invasion of the enemy. The capital city of every ruling chief was surrounded by fortifications either natural or artificial. The natural ones were water fort, mountain fort, forest fort and desert fort. Of these forms more value was attached to the water and mountain fortifications as affording protection for people and serving as impassable barriers to the invading enemy. Inside the fort was constructed the royal palace. All the essential articles of daily use were stored inside the fort and it included provision for drinking water. Some of the celebrated hill forts of north India at the time of Muhammadan invasion were Kalinjar and Gwalior in Central India, Chitorgarh and Ranthombhor in Rajasthan and Bhatia and Kangra in Punjab.

In artificial fortification the fort was surrounded by a deep and wide ditch closely touching the lofty rampart walls built around. The moats were filled with creepers and crocodiles and pointed and sharp spikes were fixed at the bottom of the moats to obstruct their crossing by the enemy. The historians of Alexander highly speak of the great Indian cities surrounded by wooden walls and ditches in 326 B.C.

Besieging of forts

To besiege forts, mining (to dig tunnels) was undertaken. But as most of the forts were built on high grounds or upon a foundation of solid rock, mining was considered entirely useless as a tool of siege-craft. The besiegers used to fill the ditch surrounding the fort wall with sand and then scale the wall using ladders and ropes. They also used to shoot flaming arrows at the defenders who in turn used to pour boiling oil and throw live snakes against those trying to scale the walls of the fort. Elephants were also used to demolish the fort walls or the gateway of the fort. Hence the gateway of the fort was fitted with pointed iron pikes to safeguard it from the attacks of the elephants. But the most usual method employed to get over the resistance of a fortress was to prevent the fort from receiving reinforcements or essential supplies and cutting off its water supply leading to starvation.

Development of Hindu military system

Standing armies had become a normal feature of Indian military life in the 4^th century B.C., when Alexander invaded India. The traditional four fold or five fold army described in the epics and Puranic literature with some addition and alteration remained the principal pillar of strength from the time of Alexander down to the end of the early medieval period. During the Vedic age and in the age of the Mahabharata, it was the usual practice with warriors to shoot arrows from their chariots or on elephant backs.

The military strategy of the Mauryans and pre-Mauryans centred round huge elephant forces which were especially useful in positional warfares in jungle areas. But later on the elephant corps had to give in before the mobile Macedonian cavalry equipped with lances and longbows shooting at long ranges and protected by heavy armour.

The military system of the Guptas was substantially the same as that of the Mauryas, but there was possibly a certain looseness of the organisation. Samudra Gupta granted some amount of autonomy to conquered territories subject to payment of tribute and allegiance to the Gupta sovereign as their overlord. He thus created a band of feudatories. These feudatories or Samanta princes supplied contingents to the imperial army and the centralization of the Mauryas was conspicuous by its absence.

After the break-up of the mighty Maurya empire (185 A.D.) the defence of India’s North-West frontier became a great problem. Repeated foreign inroads- the coming of the Bactrian Greeks, Shakas, Parthians, Kushana and Hunas showed the inferiority of the Indian cavalry when compared with the strength and mobility of mounted soldiers who came from outside. The Scythians (Shakas) and the Kushanas conquered large parts of India by the help of mounted archers on horse-back.

Advent of Mounted Archery

Under the influence of the Shakas, Parthians and Kushanas, the Guptas took up mounted horse archery. They also introduced loop stirrups by which the Gupta cavaliers were able to press a charge and engage in close-quarter combat. By contrast the Hun cavaliers without stirrups could easily be pulled down from their horses in close-quarter combat. The Guptas also covered their horses with plate armour and their rulers wore knee-length chain mail. There is no doubt that due to the Shaka conquests the importance of cavalry, especially archers on horse-back, became greater.

It seems that after the decline of the Gupta power, when the lessons of Huna warfare had been forgotten, there was a reversal to the old strategy of static defences. During the post-Gupta period the disappearance of chariot or its subordination to elephant corps seemed to be a new feature. Also mobile warfare was abandoned and more reliance was placed on static defences and pitched battles. But G.N.Pant says that even after the post-Gupta period mounted archery was a part of Hindu army as there are several references to it in paintings and the literature of the post-Gupta period.

Neglect of mounted archery by Hindus

The French traveller Bernier speaking of the superiority of the mounted archery even over musketeers writes -It cannot be denied that the cavalry of this country manoeuvre with much ease and discharge their arrows with astonishing quickness; a horseman shooting six times before a musketeer can fire twice. According to P.K.Gode in spite of the superiority of the mounted bow-men since Alexander time to Ahmad Shah Abdali, the Indian soldiers and their sovereign did not care to study and practice mounted archery and relied heavily on the elephants in war in spite of tragic experiences against the swift moving cavalry of Alexander, the Huns, or the later Turks. Probably non-availability of good horses and inability of the Hindus to breed horses made them rely on elephants. Also the hilly terrain of Central India and the Vindhya mountains covered with extensive forest did not favour operation by a large group of cavalry.

Famous contests and campaigns

Chandragupta Maurya and Dhanananda

The first major contest between Hindu rulers was that of Chandragupta Maurya and Dhanananda, the ruler of Magadha. Chandragupta Maurya who was in Punjab when the invasion of Alexander took place, led an army towards Magadha covering a distance of about 1300 kilometres. From Punjab Chandragupta Maurya moved east conquering many rashtras and janapadas and garrisoned troops in these places and finally besieged Pataliputra and defeated Dhanananda. The way he secured finance to organize and equip his army, planned the expedition against Magadha and routed the well established army of Dhanananda speaks volumes of Chandragupta Maurya’s military genius.

Southern campaign of Samudra Gupta

Samudra Gupta the greatest ruler of the Gupta dynasty undertook a campaign against twelve rulers and defeated them. Starting from Pataliputra his army marched over states like Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odhisha, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and finally reached Kanchi in Tamilnadu, covering a distance of more than 2000 kilometers.

Pulakeshi II and Harshavardhana

The contest between the Chalukyan ruler Pulakeshi II and Harshavardhana of Kanuaj took place on the banks of river Narmada. Just for the sake of calculating the distance travelled by the two armies if we take Jabalpur situated on the banks of river Narmada, it works out 600 kilometers for the army of Harsha to reach Jabalpur from Kanuaj and 1300 kilometres for the Chalukyan army to reach Jabalpur from Badami.

Northern campaign of Dhruva

The Rashtrakuta king Dhruva undertook a campaign to capture Kanuaj from his capital Malkhed in Karnataka and his troops travelled a distance of more than 1500 kilometers.

Northern campaign of Rajendra Chola I

Rajendra Chola I undertook an expedition towards the Gangetic valley covering a distance of more than 2000 kilometers and crossing several states like Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Odhisha and probably used the same route taken by Samudra Gupta to reach Kanchi. According to the Tirumalai inscription, the Chola army led by a general of Rajendra Chola I moved towards Chhattisgarh-Bastar plateau and from there turned right and journeyed into east-Bengal. This campaign lasted around two years.

Yashovarman and Lalitditya

Yashovarman was an important ruler who ruled over Kannauj after Harshavardhana probably between 724 and 760 A.D. Yashovarman killed the Gauda king who was the lord of Magadha probably in addition to Gauda. Yashovarman also subdued the king of Vanga, who appears to be an ally of the Gauda-Magadha ruler. According to R.S.Tripathi the region of Bengal and Magadha had been controlled by Kannauj during the time of Harsha and the Maukharis. Yashovarman, who appears to have been an ambitious monarch, perhaps attempted to regain control over this region and succeeded. Yashovarman’s contemporary was Lalitaditya, the ruler of Kashmir who had under his control the district of Kangra and the province of Punjab. It is not clear the reason for the hostilities between Lalitaditya and Yashovarman and probably the amibiton of Lalitaditya brought him into conflict with Yashovarman. According to R.S.Tripathi the thoughtful ruler of Kannauj submitted to him and a treaty was drawn up, but later negotiations broke off and led to a resumption of hostilities and Yashovarman was defeated and had to acknowledge the supremacy of Lalitaditya who is said to have marched further towards east attacking Jivitagupta of Bihar and west Bengal and advanced up to the sea coast of Orissa.

Hindu response to early invaders from north-west region

Alexander’s invasion

According to historic records, Alexander was the first foreigner to invade India. After reducing the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander first entered the kingdom of Ambi who welcomed Alexander and became his ally in order to fight his rival Porus. The battle of Hydaspes took place in July 326 B.C. between Alexander and Porus on the banks of river Jhelum. According to W.Tarn, the army of Alexander consisted of 15,000 infantry and 53,000 cavalry including the mounted archers. On the other hand Porus had stationed 200 huge elephants at the centre and behind them stood a force of 30,000 infantry. Both the flanks were protected by cavalry with chariots in front. His cavalry numbered 4000 and chariots 300. The battle lasted for eight hours and both sides suffered heavy losses. But how the curtain dropped on the scene is obscured by the inconsistent, often contradictory statements of Greek historians like Arrian, Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin. Arrian says that Alexander sent to Porus first the king of Takshashila and on his being rebuffed, messenger after messenger and lastly his friend Meroes who persuaded Porus to meet Alexander. The motive behind the peace must according to Buddha Prakash must have been the decision of Porus to make Alexander an instrument of reducing the recalcitrant tribes and states of Punjab and create out of them a unified empire. Accordingly, further Macedonian advance beyond the Jhelum was a joint venture of Porus and Alexander. Dr.S.Chattapadhaya, while examining Alexander’s exploits and the extent of his conquests in India, has questioned the veracity of the statements made by classical authors. About Alexander’s struggle with Porus he writes -Porus inflicted a heavy loss on the Macedonian garrison. The war was evidently a drawn game and Porus was able to maintain his own position. The classical authors have evidently twisted facts to glorify their own hero. Apart from Porus other Hindu kingdoms which offered tough fight against Alexander were Hastin the ruler of Hastinayana, the Ashvakayanas, the Kathaians, the Malavas and the Kshudrakas. According to Chesney, the Greeks were loud in praise of the Indians; never in all their eight years of constant warfare had they met with such skilled and gallant soldiers, who however surpassed in stature and bearing all other races of Asia.

Seleucus attempt to gain Indian territory

After the death of Alexander his general Seleucus who had become the ruler of Babylon planned to recover the Indian conquests of Alexander. In about 305-304 B.C. he led an expedition to India which proved abortive. Seleucus had to enter into a treaty with Chandragupta Maurya by which the former had to cede places like Kandahar, Kabul, Herat and Baluchistan to the latter.

Defeat of Demetrius

The decline of the Mauryan Empire began after the death of Ashoka and taking advantage of it the Bactrian Greeks established their sway over part of north-west India. Pushyamitra Sunga who had led a revolt against Brhadratha, the last Mauryan ruler, and had captured power, defeated the famous Bactrian Greek ruler Demetrius on the banks of river Indus.

Fight against the Kushanas

Foremost among the tribes who took up the struggle against the Shaka-Kushanas were the Yaudheyas. On the death of Huvishka they began to capture some of their strongholds. Later they also uprooted the rule of Vasudeva from Haryana and East Punja and in token of their splendid victory over the Kushanas, the Yaudheyas struck coins bearing the figure of Karttikeya. Other tribes that fought these foreigners were Arjunayanas, Audumbaras and Kulindas or Kunindas.

By the middle of 4^th century A.D., the Guptas had consolidated their hold over Magadha and the Gangetic valley and undertaken the creation of a unified empire in north-India. With that purpose Samudra Gupta launched his expedition in the west and north conquering upto Kashmir. As a result the Yaudheyas, Madrakas, Malavas, Abhiras, Arjunayanas submitted to him. Along with them the Kushanas ruler along with his subordinate Shaka chiefs submitted to him.

Extinguish of Shaka rule over India

During the time of Chandragupta II, the Sakas, a foreign tribe, had established their rule over Saurashtra and Malwa region. Chandra Gupta II led an expedition against the Shakas and their rule came to an end. The Kushanas who had submitted to Samudra Gupta tried to assert themselves, but Chandra Gupta II crossed river Sindhu and conquered Vahlikas (Bactria). As a result of Chandra Gupta II conquest there was peace in the north-west region of India for about a half a century.

Befitting reply to the Huns

But in 455 A.D., the Hunas (accompanied by the Kidarites and the Sassanids) invaded the Punjab. The ruling emperor of that time Kumara Gupta I sent his son Skanda Gupta, who inflicted a crushing defeat on the invaders. Skanda Gupta was the only hero in the two continents of Asia and Europe who successfully vanquished the nomadic hordes of the Huns. Contemporary records maintain that it took Skanda Gupta about twelve years to suppress the revolt of the Huns. Some records however indicate that he spent the whole of his life in a struggle with Huns. Once again for about half a century India was safe. But later another Huna Toramana set himself up on the Chenab and raided east Punjab and even advanced upto Bengal. At that time Yashodharman took the task to overcome and expel the Huns. Similarly Prabhakaravardhana and Pajyavardhana of the Vardhana dynasty also fought against the Huns.

To be continued