The tolerance of Hindu religion - 4

...there were historical reasons rooted in the past and the structure of Hindu society for absence of any big army in north India. There was no big king in north India at the time of Muslim invasion. This indicates that no king could command loyalties of a large number of people. And the loyalties were related to caste and to sustenance. To have a big standing army or to have the local rulers supply a large number of soldiers, one needed to have a command over a large number of resources. The army had to be paid in kind or money; larger the army larger the payment and larger the resources required. However there was no big army indicates that the small kings were lacking in resources. The small kings with small dharmic kingdoms did not have large resources to raise large armies to fight the adharmic invaders. Of course, they could have united, but that meant willing to die for others, the concept that was quite lacking in Hindu society. And what would have happened to fault lines along bloodlines? The overwhelming pride of Kshatriyas in their bravery which was the direct result of atmosphere of by and large a demilitarized society was no substitute for the need of big army. The valiant and non-retreating Muslim armies were not in a mood to be cowed down by the presence of God created bravery in Hindu society. And they had a cause to die for and a unity to fight with. This concept of God created bravery of Kshatriyas’ could have terrorized the weaker segments of Hindu society but the outsiders were a different proposition. The Muslims looked for weaknesses in fractured Hindu sides like disunity and a lack of loyalties. As we have seen that the loyalties are caste related and not village or land related. And in bravery and resources the Muslims were second to none. Not even to the holders of God created bravery. The inherited attributes according to Varna dharma were simply useless. The victories of Muslims simply rubbished the inherent bravery. The Muslim rule made a mockery of right to rule of Kshatriyas. And still nothing happened to Varna dharma. The Delhi sultanate by and large limited itself to urban centers and the Mughals made a peace with upper castes. The bottom of the heap remained by and large unaffected. The dastardly Panchayats ruled in rural areas and maintained the Varna dharma.

The society had multiple centers of power. These centers were kings, Brahmans, temples and village caste Panchayats. These power centers had their own existence independent of each other. And all of them helped in maintaining Varna dharma. Brahmans were not under the rule of kings. Similarly the temples were very wealthy and socially very powerful but not under the control of kings. They were by and large autonomous and received heavy land grants from kings and donations from others. The temples were accumulating fabulous wealth while the Shudras and untouchables were eating grains cleaned out of cow dung and bread made out of fodder and grass. There was divine and dharmic justice in favor of Brahmans and other higher Varnas. These temples did not provide army or resources to king in case of need. The wealth of temples became very famous outside India and attracted the attention of invaders who came earlier only to rob the rich temples of their fabulous wealth. The came and looted and destroyed the temples. They dug out their walls and foundations to find the gold buried in them. And the Brahmanas waited for miracles and/or reincarnations assuming that they had accumulated a very large amount of dharmic Karmas to help them out of the situation; however such hopes based on unfailing Shastras were belied. Their purity and their Karmas were not sufficient to save the temples. No king was powerful enough to stop the looting and destruction of temples....