"Disunity among Indians led to conquest by foreign invaders" is a convenient & frequently occurring myth. But that's all it is, a myth. (Thread follows) This line of reasoning is pushed by colonial historians in order to justify "India deserves to be colonised". CONT... 1/n https://twitter.com/anjalisa25/status/1260619990413316098
Cont.
Indian historians, suffering from the chronic inferiority complex of a conquered people & lacking the knowledge or insight to look deeper into the cause accepted the 'disunity' theory uncritically. Let's take stock of the facts. Islamic conquest of ME started in ...
2/n
Cont.
...late 7th century, eventually arriving and capturing Sindh in early 8th century. However, for the next two centuries the Arab armies broke their swords again and again trying to conquer western India, what is today Rajasthan & Gujarat. Even after trying for ...
3/n
Cont.
... three full centuries, backed by the might of the Arab Caliphate in its prime, with a ready military foothold in Sindh and sea supply routes available they had nothing but failure to show for it. This, when the same Arab Caliphate was rolling over ancient ...
4/n
Cont.
... nations & major powers with comparative ease. The list of adversaries defeated include the Eastern Roman Empire i.e the Byzantine Empire, the great Sassanid Empire, the Visigothic kingdoms of spain and numerous smaller kingdoms in central Asia. Entire ME including
5/n
Cont.
...the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, Persia, Syria & Levant, Egypt, entire north Africa and most parts of what is today Spain and Portugal. Most of this within a span of đź’Ż years. And yet, this same power tried again and again to conquer Indian lands and beyond an initial... 6/n
Cont.
... minor success in Sindh, had nothing but failure to show for it. Why ? Because more often than not, Indian rulers co-ordinated their actions and sometimes even joined forces and thoroughly blunted Arab invasions into India for three centuries. This is why ...
7/n
Cont.
... India is still primarily hindu and the wider sub-continent continued to have significant Hindu/dharmic (Buddhist/Jain/Sikh) population well into the early modern era.
The first wave of muslim conquest in India, by the Arabs, was an utter failure, the second ...
8/n
Cont.
... wave, however, met with considerable success. So why the central Asian armies succeeded while the Arab ones failed ?
Hint : it proves conclusively why 'Indians were disunited' was not a major reason for the success.
To be continued...9/n
Cont.
The second wave of Islamic invasions into India came not from Arabia but from the converted Muslims of central Asia, beginning in early 11th century. Like Mahmud of Ghazni, these were Turkic tribespeople who were mostly converted during Islamic conquest of this ...
10/n
Cont.
...region, removing their Buddhist rulers, from 9th century onwards. However, it is a mistake to consider these invaders as just another Islamic invasion. While Islam certainly inspired the excesses against temples and the like, the steppe armies have been invading ...
11/n
Cont.
... the civilized worlds long before Islam appeared and continued to do so afterwards with very little modification in their basic military strategy & success. The Eurasian steppe tribes were horse rearing people with excellent archery skills and horsemanship.
12/n
Cont.
Whenever in history a strong leader unified these nomadic tribes, he ended up having at his disposal a cavalry army consisting of ALL able bodied men of an entire nation of people ! Unlike armies of settled civilizations, the soldiers of nomadic civilizations ...
13/n
Cont.
... were not bound by farming seasons & were available year round, a major advantage. The sheer mobility of cavalry armies compared to infantry heavy armies allowed them to often dictate terms in terms of time and place of battles. A disadvantaged cavalry army ...
14/n
Cont.
... could simply ride away from an infantry heavy enemy, to fight another day, at a time and place of its choosing. Given their obvious advantages it is no wonder that settled civilizations were overrun by central asian horse armies again & again, over the centuries.
15/n
Cont.
Kushana conquests in ancient India, Gupta empire's hard-fought defence against the white-huna invasions, saka conquests in Central Asia & Persia to Atilla the Hun's exploits in Europe and the later Mongol empires subjugation of China and Islamic ME & Levant are just...
16/n
Cont.
... a handful of the examples over the centuries. History tells us that countering these cavalry armies, while not impossible, was quite difficult, given how few managed it. It required the confluence of unified leadership coordinating over the entire region of ...
17/n
Cont.
... conflict, ample resources & manpower to create adequately manned strongholds like forts etc and most importantly, a cavalry force of its own to take the battle to the enemy. The importance of availability of good warhorse breeds cannot be overstated.
18/n
Cont.
No country ever successfully repelled the steppe horse armies without a capable cavalry of its own.

Even the Arab Caliphate was eventually overrun by Hulegu Khan's Mongol horde and had their capital Baghdad, sacked. Because the Arabs could never match the steppe ...
19/n
Cont.
... tribes in the number of cavalry or their skills in horseback archery. The importance of horses was not lost on Indian kings, who tried their utmost to import breeding stocks & develop horse breeding populations wherever possible. Indian history is replete with ...
20/n
Cont.
... instances of buying horses from abroad, especially the Arabian peninsula. Good warhorses were sold at such a lucrative mark-up that it attracted fortune seekers from as far away places as Russia (cfe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasy_Nikitin). The question many would have at this...
21/n
Cont.
...is why didn't Indian kingdoms breed horses of their own? The reason is twofold; firstly, in a surprising parallel with modern technology denial regimes, most mediaeval horse traders sold castrated horses, so as not to kill the market. Secondly, India's tropical ...
22/n
Cont.
...humid climate is not suitable for horse rearing. Thriving in dry climates, horses had a much reduced live expectancy in India. In fact, till the introduction of modern antibiotics, few horses lived out their expected lifetime in India. This necessitated a steady...
23/n
Cont.
... import of warhorses from abroad at tremendous costs. Throughout the middle ages this dependence on foreign horses decided fortunes of Indian kingdoms, hindu & islamic ones alike. Access to the horse breeding regions of their ancestral central asian regions is a...
24/n
Cont.
... major reason for the Mughals to continue recapturing those lands, at enormous costs and often with disastrous results. India's considerable geographical disadvantages vis-a-vis horse rearing is borne out by the fact that the central asian invaders themselves ...
25/n
Cont.
...saw a gradual erosion of cavalry resources as they settled down in India and mostly lost out to the next wave of invaders from the region. That the Mughals, with the resources of India backing them could not control the central asian regions, is telling.
26/n
Cont.
Let's come back to India's history of resistance against the islamic invaders. History of islam in India is that of continued defiance and resistance by dharmic people. It is why hindus continued to be unconverted, against all odds, while civilizations all around...
27/n
Cont.
...us crumbled and gave up the culture & gods of their forefathers under the threat of the Islamic sword. Of the numerous large & small resistances to islamic rule, three are arguably most noteworthy. These were the Rajput, the Maratha & the Vijaynagar empires.
28/n
Cont.
All three spent considerable effort in bolstering their cavalry, while Vijaynagar primarily depended on imports, the Rajputs developed their own breed from the Arab horse -- the Marwari horse. Likewise, the Marathas cross bred imported horses with local ponies, ...
29/n
Cont.
... creating the hardy Deccan horse.

So, in a nutshell, Indians suffered defeats at the hands of central asian invaders not because they had a better religion (as claimed by Islamists) nor because we were disunited (as claimed by colonial historians & lackeys). We...
30/n
Cont.
...lost because due to geographical reasons beyond our control they had access to better & more number of warhorses & we didn't. Various Indian rulers tried to rectify this with various methods, with varying success. Import dependence & the massive drain on coffers...
31/n
Cont.
...meant that Vijaynagar could never have as many cavalry as it needed. At the battle of talikota it supposedly had a 1:3 disadvantage in cavalry. The Rajputs too, lacked the resources to breed enough horses. The Maratha horse, while hardy was not strong enough...
32/n
Cont.
...to carry armoured horsemen, necessitating the Marathas to depend on Afghan 'iron horsemen' for heavy cavalry.
Clearly, lack of unity was not as much a factor behind the success of central Asian invaders as the availability of horses was. Yet this aspect is ...
33/n
Cont.
... completely ignored in Indian history. They will talk of all possible factors from technological superiority in artillery to nonsense like social cohesion but not talk of the "horse in the room" ! Question is why ? The answer, I posit lies once again in trying...
34/n
Cont.
...to justify the invasions with 'Indians deserved it". Gunpowder technology didn't accord any lasting technological superiority to the Mughals, native Indian armies like the Marathas & Sikhs caught up quickly enough. But the real cause, the lack of access to horses...
35/n
Cont.
...was just a geographical twist of fate, for which no sane person can truly blame the hindus. And any theory that doesn't blame or belittle hindus is not acceptable to our historians. Hence the logical contortions trying to blame the religion and the society for...
36/n
Cont.
... military defeats that had perfectly reasonable military explanations. In fact, countries that were 'united' & followed so called 'egaletarian' religions suffered worse defeats from armies of the same centre asian steppes. The defeats of the arabs and the eastern...
37/n
Cont.
...Roman Empire were so catastrophic that within the next 100 years or so, both accepted the suzerainty of the nomadic Turks as the Caliph. Almost 1000 years later Roman Anatolia is still turk. And yet, 'disunited' 'weak' Indians are still following their 5000 years...
38/n
Cont.
...old civilization, thx in no part to the heroic struggle of their forefathers thru' the ages, against odds that destroyed every other civilization.
So, there you go people, a brief history how we r still standing, when all others r dead.

Iss desh mein kuch to hai 🙏🏽
n/n
@threadreaderapp unroll, please.
You can follow @bidesh_desh.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: