RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND MILITARY FEUDALISMCentral Asian invaders consisted of specially trained slaves who had
practically grown up with their horses and were subjected to a constant
drill. Rushing towards the enemy and turning their horses suddenly, they
would then—unobstructed by the heads of the horses and at a moment
when they had stopped dead in their tracks—shoot a volley of well-aimed
arrows before disappearing as quickly as they had come. The performance
would be repeated elsewhere, thus decimating and confusing the enemy
without great losses on the Muslim side.
But the Indians were not vanquished just by the superior strategy and
tactics of the invaders; they were simply not in a position to organise a
concerted defence effort. Caste distinctions and the general separation of
the rulers from the rural folk prevented the kind of solidarity which would
have been required for such a defence effort. Neither religious wars nor
any other wars involving fundamental principles had ever been waged in
India. War was a pastime of the rulers. The troops recruited for such wars
were either kinsmen of the rulers—particularly so among the Rajputs—or
mercenaries who hoped for their share of the loot which was usually the
main aim of warfare. Fighting against the troops of the Muslim invaders
was both dangerous and unprofitable, as their treasures were not within
easy reach. The invading troops, on the other hand, could expect a good
deal of loot in India and their imagination was also fired by the merit
attached to waging a ‘holy war’ against the infidels.
Moreover, Islamic society was much more open and egalitarian than
Hindu society. Anybody who wanted to join an army and proved to be good
at fighting could achieve rapid advancement. Indian armies were led by kings
and princes whose military competence was not necessarily in keeping with
their hereditary rank; by contrast, the Muslim generals whom they
encountered almost invariably owed their position to their superior military
merit. Even sultans would be quickly replaced by slaves-turnedgenerals if
they did not know how to maintain their position. This military Darwinism
was characteristic of early Islamic history. The Ghaznavids and the Ghurids
and then the sultans of Delhi were all slaves to begin with. Such slaves would
be bought in the slave markets of Central Asia, would subsequently make a
mark by their military prowess and their loyalty and obedience, and, once
they had risen to a high position, often did not hesitate to murder their master
in order to take his place. The immobile Hindu society and its hereditary
rulers were no match for such people.
Muhammad of Ghur and the conquest of northern IndiaThe final struggle for India in the twelfth century was again preceded by
momentous events in Afghanistan and Central Asia. In 1151 Ghazni, with all
its magnificent palaces and mosques, was completely destroyed. The rulers of
Ghur in Western Afghanistan emerged as new leaders from this internecine