Causes for failure of the Rajputs

The victory of the Turkish invaders over the leading Rajput states of North India is a phenomenon which requires explanation. This is particularly so, because, many of the Rajput principalities of the time were superior, both in terms of size, population and revenue resources, to the Ghurids and the Ghaznavids. Except for a few fertile regions such as Khurasan, Transoxiana, Khwarizm, much of the terrain in the region was mountainous or arid and inhospitable. Moreover, it had been thoroughly plundered for long by the Ghuzz tribes across the Oxus. On the other hand, the tracts under the control of Rajputs, outside Rajasthan and Bundelkhand, were very fertile and productive. In terms of human resources or population, too, the Rajput-held areas were in an advantages position. This explains why in any battle the number of soldiers on the side of the Rajput kings were far larger than those of the Turks.

The overriding element in the Turkish victory was their advanced military technology and tactics. Unlike the Rajput armies, the reinforcements of good Central Asian horses provided a better livestock for the Turkish cavalry, which were used excellently in battles. The Indian army had always suffered from an inferior breed of horses and was wary of using the cavalry. The heavily armored horsemen and mounted archer, using iron stirrups, had completely changed the mode of warfare in Europe and Central Asia, from the tenth century onwards. The Turks had become adept in this new style of warfare, which allowed greater ability to manoeuvre and which emphasized swiftness and light equipment. The iron stirrup made it possible for the cavalry men to advance and even retreat with rapidity, shooting spears or lances and bows from the saddle, without halting or dismounting and without being thrown off the horse as a result of the impact. 

The Indian military strategy, on the other hand, gave greater importance to weight than to mobility. The Rajput forces, dependent on the elephant and infantry, were a heavy slow-moving mass. They believed in crushing rather than moving rapidly and striking. They proved immobile when pitted against the swift moving cavalry, which could attack the flanks and rear of the enemy forces. Also, the Turks tended to increasingly concentrate on capturing forts which had a strategic advantage and the Rajput army was therefore forced into defensive positions in hilly terrains. Guerrilla warfare could have been an effective means of harassing the Turkish armies, particularly when they were on the march, but this was not used effectively. 

There was a basic lack of consciousness among the Indian rulers of the need to defend the north western passes. This lack of strategic consciousness is also explained by the absence of a dominant power in North India. After the fall of the Gurjara-Pratihara Empire there arose small independent powers like Gahadvalas in Kanauj, Parmaras in Malwa, Chalukyas in Gujarat, Chauhans in Ajmer, Tomars in Delhi, Chandellas in Bundelkhand etc. These states were involved in endless battles and campaign against each other which exhausted their resources and energy.

The Rajput states were unable or unwilling to join hands to expel the Ghaznavids from the Punjab despite the rapid decline of the Ghaznavid power in West and Central Asia following the death of Mahmud Ghazni. On the other hand, the successors of Mahmud remained tactically on the offensive and continued to make raids into Indian territories in Rajasthan up to Ajmer and beyond and the Gangetic areas upto Kannauj and Varanasi.  

Subscribe on YouTube - NotesWorld

For PDF copy of Solved Assignment

Any University Assignment Solution

WhatsApp - 9113311883 (Paid)