Warfare of the Hindus

The Hindus is generic term to denote the inhabitants of India. The history of India is dotted with numerous wars and conflicts. In India, like the Greeks and Chinese, the existence of a 'Heroic Age' in war is known. Manuals like the Arthashastra of KAUTILYA indicate the prominence of war. The Army was called the 6th of the seven essential elements in the state. But from all accounts no single king or soldier of prominence arose. Battles were confined to multiple duels between Charioteers accompanied by foot soldiers.

At about this time the elephant was introduced in war. The preference of the elephant over the horse was probably dictated by necessity, as good breeds of horses were not available. Though elephants had strength and terrifying appearance yet by all available accounts they made a poor showing in battle. Between 325-27 BC, Alexander invaded India. Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush and after a series of battles was met by king Poros on the bank of the river Jhelum. The battle is well documented and Alexander won a Pyrrhic victory. From all accounts it was a bitter battle with the Greeks unable to make much headway. So fierce was the resistance that Alexender's men refused to go forward. It was a decisive battle and heralded the end point of Greek conquest.

After the departure of Alexander to the time of Harsha the composition of Hindu Armies and their tactics and strategy in war did not alter appreciably. Chandragupta, Samudragupta, Yasodharan, Skandagupta and Harsha are the important military contributors of this period. But it appears that all of them lacked tactical sense, as the passes of the Hindu-Kush were left unguarded. The Armies of that period consisted of Foot Soldiers armed with spears and bows. There was also a corps of chariots and elephants. Earlier chariots had two horses, a driver and a bowman. Later chariots had 4 horsemen and carried 6 men - two archers, two drivers and two shield bearers. Elephants had a pride of place in Hindu Armies. They were defended by elaborate armour of steel. Elephants were trained to move into battle to the accompaniment of drums and couch-shells. The commander-in-Chief normally mounted an elephant and directed the battle. Cavalry was another arm. Though theoretically, it was rated above infantry but practically it was neglected Arm. Cavalry was of two types - heavy and light. Mounted Cavalry men carried spears and swords, but mounted bowmen were never developed.

The Hindu Army was essentially a voluntary force. The recruitment was carried out accordingly. From the Arthasastra, we learn that the recruitment was from the following five sources viz Choras-robbers and bandits, Mlechennias-highlanders, Organized gangs( Choraganas), Atavikas-foresters and lastly warrior clans ( Sastropajivas and srenis).Such recruitment militated against professionalism.
The Indian Army in battle was divided into the following groups:

(a) Regular corps - The professionals
(b) Hereditary troops
(c) Mercenaries
(d) Contingents from feudal chiefs
(e) Bandits and jungle tribes

From what has been written in the proceeding paragraphs, it can be seen that basically the post Poros Armies lacked mobility and were slow moving affairs. The Hindu Kings and Generals did not learn anything from the Macedonian's. Generally, the strategy of the Magadha Kings centered on a huge elephants force (e.g., Chandragupta 9,000 elephants, Harsha 60,000 elephants etc). These were decisive in positional warfare and jungle areas, but were found wanting against quick moving horsemen in the plains.

The essence of the Turkish Islamic armies which the Hindus faced later was a controlled mobility and coordination ever large areas. The Hindu Armies used to positional warfare could not understand or counter the Arab tactics of harassment and exhaustion carried out by hordes of encircling, elusive mounted archers. The tactics of the Turku-Islamic Invaders were simple. They planned to surprise the enemy, marching rapidly by day and night. In battle, they would seek to encircle the enemy by moving around one of his flanks. They also used the tactics of simulated flight before turning and outflanking the enemy.

In contrast to this, Hindu Armies remained the same as during the Magadha Empire. No innovations were made and the art of war degenerated into a massed charge with elephant and men. The Hindu's normally went to battle without a fixed plan. No contingency was made as to what would be the next step if the King fell in the battle. Thus on the death of the leader, Hindu Armies were liable to disintegrate, as happened to King Dahir of Sind in 712 AD. Also Hindu Kings on their part generally allowed the initiative to be taken from their hands by their waiting for the Arab-Turk hordes to attack first. Rajputs had tremendous courage but could not produce and outstanding soldier.

An important date in the military history of the Hindus is the invasion of Mohd Ghori. Ghori was defeated at the first battle of Tarain by Prithviraj, the Hindu King. But the Hindus did not show any strategic sense and did not pursue Ghori energetically. Ghori was able to get away and subsequently defeated Prithviraj at the second battle of Tarain. In this battle Ghori had 120,000 men. The Rajput princess opposed him with 300,000 men and 3,000 elephants. The forces of Ghori were divided into 4 sections. Ghori proved himself a master General by dividing his remaining forces of 10,000 horsemen each and launched an enveloping attack. He also carried out a strategic retreat and counter attack that sealed the fate of Prithviraj. The Hindus despite their incredible numbers were defeated by Ghori. Ghori's invasion marked the end of Hindu domination over Northern India.

The advent of the Muslims and Turks marks a turning point in the military history of India. The Turks overcame the Hindus and slowly and surely established Islamic rule over India. The Turks were able to defeat the Hindus because they possessed in an outstanding measure the qualities, the Hindus lacked. The complacency and tolerance of the Hindus was met with death and destruction by the Muslims. They were also fanatically devoted to Islam which was their major unifying factor. The Arabs were highly mobile, being mounted on fast moving horses. Their Armies were in fact hordes of mounted archers and the Hindus never had any. That is the essence of Hindu warfare-neglect of a fundamental principle of war -mobility.