The Dispatches on War (Part II)

Though a newbie to thinking and writing and igornant of facts, I want to comment on this. Bear with me. :)

Mughal`s defeat was something about the time the nation was in. Like a peaceful bulky fellow cannot compete a short skinny fellow with a great zeal for voilance and dominance, the same way, the europians had the will to keep going on. It was for the reason that the only thing they were interested in were winning and rampaging, nothing could stop them. After all, they had just come out of the dark ages. On the other hand, Mughals were more interested in fun stuff like culture and considerred wars as a necessary evil. Without havng their will and concentration in it, what else they could have got if not defeat? Otherwise, they had all means to setup R&Ds for warcraft or to get the research done about who is doing what and whats what.

This has been hapenning all the time and will keep hapenning. Just a natural phenomenon that nations as a whole have a mood which keeps on changing.

Do you guys see any point in this?

Jahanzeb

re: Fuzair # 14

Institutionalism might be a reason and so would an individual, but the fact remains all the Indian technology was still imported. The Europeans also never developed any institutionalism and some of their leaders were as compent or incompent as the Indians, but Europe was slowly surpassing the world in its technology. European mastery of military technology was made possible by its political plurality and the laissez-faire nature of European economies, which were increasingly pre-occupied with the costs of war.

In the case of India, military technology was the monoploy of the state and since it had enough technical advantage to cower its population, it did not feel a need to improve. By the 1800s, India was no position to match the Europeans and even valiant attempts by Tipu Sultan were last ditch efforts at playing catch-up and were not serious efforts at military reform.

However, where I do agree with you is that India has traditionally seen dynastic rule, which has alway hindered the growth of institutionalism in the region and the politics of the region is still based on the aura of the individual and the cult of personalized politics.

Ciao

I would still disagree about military technology giving the Europeans a huge edge over the ``natives.`` It`s not the second half of the 20th Century and ``thank God we have the Gatling gun and they have not.`` In the 18th century, European military technology (land tech, that is, naval was another story) was not that much better than the Indian`s. If you read accounts of the HEIC`s military campaigns 1750-1820, their weaponry was no better than that of the natives. Indeed, IIRC, Tipu Sultan had better artillery than the English (and imported instructors/gunners; yes, European!). It certainly wasn`t enough to overcome the Indian numerical advantage by itself. However, European military organization/structure was certainly superior to that of the natives.

Europeans had started to take war very seriously by the start of the 17th century and the difference between Indian officers and European officers was remarkable. Increasingly large numbers of European officers (certainly at the level of battalion commander and below) were professionals; Indian officers were usually petty aristocrats at the head of a feudal levy. Whatever discipline and training were instilled in Indian troops was done by European mercenaries. Thus the failure was an institutional one and not a technological one. By the second half of the 19th century, the technological advantage of the Europeans/English was insurmountable BUT the British did not conquer India in 1857.

As late as the Sikh Wars of the 1840s, native troops (trained by European mercenaries) could give the British a damn good run for their money and it was only treachery at the Army commander level that allowed the British to win. If Hari Singh Nalwa had commanded the Sikhs at Chillianwallah, the outcome would have been very different. So it wasn`t weaponry that was important but institutions and the individual commanding.

Regards.

re: Dost-Mittar # 11

Thanks for your comments and I believe, that the island in question was Grenada in Caribbean. As to the Sikhs, my impression was that Ranjit Singh was using French officers in his military and was buying arms (artillery) from the French also, which can explain his success in Punjab.

re: Fuzair # 12

Thanks for correcting my mistakes. :)

As to the Indian Empire, I would have to say that empire would have decayed and declined but at a slower pace. Its decline was accelerated by the East India Company and the collapse of the Mughuls, as I argued, was not pegged to the competence of its rulers but to their lack of military technology versus the European powers.

All the major non-European powers had advanced bureaucracies and good administration systems, which allowed them to slide slowly into a decline, but they lacked the technology, which would have allowed them to compete with the Europeans. It was in the military technology that Europe made its impact and not in the area of the goverance. Therefore, it makes no difference as to how long the Mughuls ruled or how well, because in the end, their lack of ability to modernize and innovate would gradually doom them politically.

Ciao

Interesting writeup, Feroz. I`ve just skimmed through it but a couple of minor points and a couple of major ones:

Its the Battle of Mohacs not Mochas.
And Spanish Tercios, not Tericos, but minor issues.

The real problem with Spanish power was the Dutch Disease: easy money led it to ignore virtually all industry that could sustain its economy in the long run. The wars simply sped up the process of Spanish decay. Even without the wars, the massive inflow of funds from the Americas would have weakened the Spanish economy anyway since its structure was such that it had no way of productively using those funds.

As far as the Mughals go, everything you say about the decay of the Empire is essentially correct but you`ve missed the real reason why the Empire decayed. Look at the list of Mughal Emperors and their reigns after Aurangzeb`s death in 1707:

Bahadur Shah I (Shah Alam I), b. October 14, 1643 in Burhanpur, ruler from 1707-1712, d. February 1712 in Lahore.
Jahandar Shah, b. 1664, ruler from 1712-1713, d. February 11, 1713 in Delhi.
Furrukhsiyar, b. 1683, ruler from 1713-1719, d. 1719 in Delhi.
Rafi Ul-Darjat Shah Jahan II, ruler 1719, d. 1719 in Delhi.
Rafi Ud-Daulat, ruler 1719, d. 1719 in Delhi.
Nikusiyar, ruler 1719, d. 1719 in Delhi.
Mohammed Ibrahim, ruler 1720, d. 1720 in Delhi.
Mohammed Shah, b. 1702, ruler from 1719-1720, 1720-1748, d. April 26, 1748 in Delhi.
Ahmad Shah Bahadur, b. 1725, ruler from 1748-1754, d. January 1775 in Delhi.
Alamgir II, b. 1699, ruler from 1754-1779, d. 1759.
Shah Jahan III, ruler 1760?
Shah Alam II, b. 1728, ruler from 1779-1806, d. 1806.
Akbar Shah II, b. 1760, ruler from 1806-1837, d. 1837.
Bahadur Shah II aka Bahadur Shah Zafar , b. 1775 in Delhi, ruler from 1837-1857, d. 1862 in exile in Rangoon, Burma.

Between 1707-1720, there were 7 Emperors and as many succession wars. What do you think that did to the Empire? Don`t forget, that same ``bad`` land revenue system, lack of technological innovation, etc, let the Empire grow for almost two hundred years. Lets say that an averagely competent Mughal Emperor had ruled for 25-30 years in the first half of the 18th Century. Would the Empire have decayed at the same rate? In the same way?

ferozk:

Excellent paper, but may not be suitable for the chowk audience. Should publish it in some professional journal.

My knowledge of warfare and its history is abysmal. But from my reading of the Indian history, it seems that the mughals had lost their superiority even before the East India Company established itself on the subcontinent. Panjab was lost to the sikhs and most of the central and western India to the Marathas.

The experience of European countries shows the futility of guns versus butter debate, unless the military budget is going mostly to purchase weapons from outside without any positive effect on the local economy. The two can go together. China did not wait to solve its poverty before modernising its army; India too has substantially increased its military budget in recent years while the economy has taken off.

Iraq may have shown the limits of brutal military power. But we dont know yet. The Americans are in trouble because they dismantled the defeated government instead of taking it over. Also, the amount of brutality is limited by the presence of tv cameras and journalists. Was it Reagan who had closed Dominican Republic (?) completely to the media while the US was conducting a military operation there?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Netizen and feroz:

am not denying the value and import of technology... am just arguing for the superiority of the human will over superiority in technology...(given that nobody fights with poisoned arrows and sling shots):)

re: #4 by temporal

``there is more to modern warfare than hi-tech gadgets...in support i would cite: ``

There are many more facets to a war, but having a better technology will always favor you. Even though it is undeniable that the man manning the tank or a fighter jet is indispensable, an army using a superior technology will always have an upper hand.
History is replete with such examples.
The Spanish conquistadors were few against the Aztecs, Incas but had a superior technology wrt the Indians. The Indians used clubs whereas the Spaniards useds swords, rode horses and were wearing metal armors.
Regarding the Vietnam War, the U.S. help was met with the large financial and arms supply by the Soviets and the Chinese to the VietCong. There was not much of difference in regard to the technology used by both the sides.
Regarding Taliban, the N.A. who were holding on their 10% territory for such a long time had no difficulty in overthrowing the mighty Taliban with the aid of American Bombers and Russian tanks. It was the Taliban who didn`t even show up for a fight and disappeared into thin air.
During the Afghan war against Soviets, the Stinger missilies supplied by the Americans neutralised Soviet attack helicopters. Hence technology is very important. If that had not been the case then Pakistan would not have cared for F16`s for such a long time.

re: Temporal # 4

Ho Chi Minh, and Che were fighting for a political ideology and the Taliban were fighting for a theocratic ideology and it was this, political-religious philosophical belief, which was sustaining their war effort. Even they had to rely on modern weapons systems to defeat their foes. In the case of the Vietnamese, it was the Soviet supplied ground-to-air missile systems and Che`s entry into Havana was made more easy by weapons not by political rhetoric.

As for Taliban, they were using satellite phones in the war against the United States and they too had to rely on modern hi-tech gadgets to fight. :)

I agree, with you that political ideology/philosophy is a powerful incentive in winning wars but it too needs to be reinforced with weapons to ``convince`` the other person. There is no subsitute to technology as a force multiplier in wars despite the bravery of the individual solider. Technology in warfare is more about the common sense of self-preservation and it always makes for a very creditable argument in fighting wars. The basic rule of warfare is to kill the other person before he kills you. This is why the Americans developed the cruise missile and are willing to spend a million dollars per cruise missile and why they lobbed so many cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq and Sudan - if you can kill someone from a long way off, the better it is for you and more power to you!

As George C. Scott said in the movie Patton: no son of a bit-h ever won a war by dying for his country; he won the war by making the other poor, dumb son of a bit-h die for his country. Wars are won by bullets, which kill and bombs that destroy and to make these gadgets you need technology and not divine revelations or political eloquence. :)

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: nazarhayatkhan # 3

As I mentioned in reply to Netizen, the era of industrialized war is over and after 1945, it was the very irrationality of war, which seems to have rationalized a lesser role for wars as a solution to national problems. It is no longer feasible to fight wars, but this not mean that wars have ended for good. It only means that protean nature of war has again adapted itself to a new environment and in this new era, wars will be more about technology and use of information.

For a lack of a better term, I will call it the era of knowledge warfare and wars of this sort will be fought not with weapons, but with information systems and the aim will be the denial of the information to enemy. An analysis of United States` military operations in Iraq, during the last 15 years, shows that United States` advantage was in its weapons systems, which were knowledge based and it was the intergration of information, from multiple sources, into a conscise ``virtual battlefield`` which defeated the Iraqis. Modern weapons systems are increasingly relying on the processing of information to give the combatants an added advantage and there is progressively less of actual fighting taking place in modern wars.

However, to be fair, urban warfare defeats this argument as seen in the operational limits of United States` military operations in Iraqi cities. In a way, it seems that urban warfare is an antidote to knowledge based warfare, because it brings the equation back to the individual soldier - ``the boot on the ground`` and negates the advantages of technology. It is the only form of asymeterical warfare, which seems to allow technologically inferior armies or groups to fight technologically advanced armies.

Modern warfare, thus, will mean that nations will have the technological to ability control the flow of information and access to it, and these nations will be dominant in this new form of warfare. The militarization of space is another aspect of this warfare, because military satellites give advanced warnings and nations which can neutralize this threat, will be emerge as the more powerful nations politically.

I agree with you that wars are a poor option, but I also am of the opinion that wars will exist as long as they personify the struggle for power and this struggle will not end as long as nations compete in the international arena. The nature of war is very flexible and it will adapt and re-emerge in a different guise. I agree that wars are fought as a tool of ``national will, diplomacy, political stability, economy, industrial production, technology`` but these are justifications and in a larger sense; they are to justify the reasons for war which originate in the human mind and the human heart. As long as the human heart holds envy and the human mind rationalizes envy, wars will happen regardless of the above quoted reasons.

Ciao

netizen and feroz:

Technology will always be at the forefront of modern warfare. Hence U.S. is spending billions to develop even better fighter planes, even if there is hardly any match for their current ones.

there is more to modern warfare than hi-tech gadgets...in support i would cite:

--ho chi minh
--che guevera
--talibaan

against guided human will (the above examples) or misguided human will (the mushrooming suicide bombers) hi-tech is and will remain suspect

rgds

t

FR Khan

Good heavy stuff. Just some general thoughts here.

In the present day world, War is only one of the tools of achieving national objective - the last option and a bad one at that.

To achieve the national objectives, there has to be a right mix of all the tools available - right cause, national will, diplomacy, political stability, economy, industrial production, technology - you can add few more.

Eisonhower defeated Soviets without a War - and it lost Vietnam with all its might. US won the last Gulf War because it had the right mix.

Effectively, US has also lost its Wars against Afghanistan & Iraq - it is no more a game of only modernaization & technology. China has recaptured Hongkong & Macao without a War -and it will be followed by Taiwan in due course.

And who wants to fight a War to capture territories in the present day - when you can achieve the same purpose of enriching yourself and increasing influence by using so many other tools at your disposal.

War is now not a cost-effective option of achieving the national aim - diplomacy, aid, trade etc can do wonders.

nhk

re: Netizen # 1

Yes, access to new technology is really important to maintain a military advantage. It is for this reason that western militaries fund R&D projects. In the case of India, as you said it correctly, it is not the lack of the human talent but access to labs which is a problem. If, in the future, India couples military purchases with the transfer of technology agreements, this technological deficit might end. Also, in poor nations, it is politically hard to justify the costs of a weapons research program over social spendings.

As to Japan, I have no idea what might have happened but it does make for interesting speculation. :)

I believe that cannon is still in Lahore and it is popularly known as Kim`s Gun due to Kipling making it famous by having his main character, Kim, sit on it. :)

In many ways, and I am sure this is open to debate, the Second World War was the last industrialized war fought and after that, it seems that warfare is becoming a technological enterprise and the development of this idea reached its culmination during the Second Gulf War in 1990-1991 against Iraq.

Ciao

``Another feature of the gunpowder empires was that they relied on imported military technology, for maintaining political power, but they lacked the means to produce the required military technology domestically``

So true of the developing world. Unless and untill a country is able to produce world class arms indigenously it will be impossible for it to become truly powerful. In india we have DRDO, but frankly I think they are decades behind the laboratories in the Western World.

Regarding the Japanese, I wonder what would have happened if the Mongols had been successful in subjugating the samurais earlier. Maybe present day Japan would also have witnessed communal riots.

``Mughul India was also an example of a “gunpowder empire” and it would also decline due to the Mughuls’ inability to match the European weapons technology, which was being imported into the region, courtesy of the British India Company. ``

Babar was the first to introduce cannon to the Indian subcontinent. It helped him to defeat the large armies of Lodhi and latter Rana Sanga. This new technology (wrt Indian subcontinent) came in handy.

I have read that during the third battle of Panipat, it was Abdali`s cannon, Zamzama which struck terror in the rank and file of the Maratha army. If I am not wrong, the cannon is in Lahore.

Technology will always be at the forefront of modern warfare. Hence U.S. is spending billions to develop even better fighter planes, even if there is hardly any match for their current ones.