Swift Horses Sharp Swords- Medieval Battles Which Shook India

Foreword It is evident that Indian history is written from the perspective of invaders before 1947. After independence, the narrative of the earlier masters continued unabated in academics. A one-sided and distorted historical narrative has been holding sway since the last seven plus decades. The consequences can be perceived in the youth, year after year, decade after decade. Three generations of Indians after independence have already been brainwashed with the distorted and one-sided history and chronology. Indian history, thus, is all about the Delhi Sultanate, Mughals and British. It is about Islamic heritage and railways introduced by the British. The British took this historiography to another level when James Mill and VA Smith left no stone unturned to brand Hindus as an always-invaded community. They propagated the theory of Aryan Invasion wherein Aryans came with Vedas and pushed the indigenous communities down South. The majestic and magnificent Indian art and sculptures have been unceremoniously attributed to the Greek effect. They even brought out the tomes of Cambridge History of India wherein they kept quoting the Greco-Roman sources and did not rely on Indian sources at all.

Another malicious propaganda run by the British was that Hindus were only concerned with spiritualism and moksha and not concerned with material life at all and hence unfit for complete freedom. This made the many Hindus rightly concerned about the relentless hoopla and the likes of Jadunath Sarkar, KP Jayaswal and RC Majumdar rose to the occasion. Majumdar's Corporate life in Ancient India and Jayaswal's Hindu Polity were a fitting answer to the British's fallacious assertions.

Despite these efforts, so-called historians with a biased approach rewrote the history which was designed to keep Hindus wallow in shame and self-doubt. The unfortunate result of this phenomenon is that our generations are growing up with an acute inferiority complex about their native culture, traditions and religion.

Preface Pricket aficionados may recall that in the 1980s and 9os, Indian teams were full of superstars but they could not often win, especially in crunch situations. Every player was individually brilliant but more often than not they failed to jell as a team. Or take the example of Indian hockey players who loved to show their skills in dribbling instead of passing to teammates and then scoring a goal. Similar were the characteristics of Hindu armies a thousand years back. The soldiers were all individually bright, brave and courageous. However, collectively they often lost battles because of the absence of teamwork, strategy and organization.

In India change is painfully slow and often triggered by external compulsions rather than foresight, even after a lapse of 1,000 years.

It may be recalled that exactly 1,000 years back, Mahmud Ghazni was destroying Mathura and Kannauj and committing atrocities unheard of before in Hindu society. How could a militarily sturdy and numerically stronger king like Prithviraj Chauhan come a cropper in the 2nd battle of Tarain? Islamist invasions and attacks started sometime in 685 CE and continued even after 1192 CE when invaders decided to stay put in India. For these 400 long years, why could Indians not do anything substantial for their defence? That Indians, who have a very long and illustrious history of more than 5,000 years, were defeated squarely by tribals who were converted to Islam just a century ago is indeed surprising. The second battle of Tarain was the most significant battle in India's history because the consequences of the loss made India what it is today. In geopolitical terms, loss in that battle made India a part of the greater Islamic world.

Book's Contents and Sample Pages