6th June 2015
For the past 5000 years, India has been conquered by horses, not by “Aryans”, Greeks, Muslims or the British
I think I've by now found conclusive evidence that India was mauled in the battlefield by men on HORSES. It was the horse that defeated India. Without horses, foreign invaders would have comprehensively failed to defeat India, being always outnumbered by Indians.
India is uniquely placed among all nations of the world. It has a repeated history of losing in war against a pitiably small force. India's size and population has always drawfed its enemies, but they've always manage to conquer it pretty easily.
The horse was the most effective vehicle to deliver lethal force during the agricultural era (particularly before the invention/"discovery" of the gun). It was the nuclear weapon of that age. The horse can be compared to the the Patton tank in WWII. It gave invaders a significant competitive advantage over slow moving Indian armies in which the elephant played a significant role.
But India never had war-worthy horses; it could not produce them domestically. It was therefore forced to import them at great cost.
While the debate about the "aryans" is unresolved, it is likely they had access to war worthy horses, which gave them a comparative advantage over the north Indians 3500 years ago. The Greeks definitely did have horses, and the Muslim invaders had horses. Even the British were particularly good at horses. In each case, India lost wars mainly due to its inability to produce and therefore intuitively manage horses. Natural horse riders would do well in such wars; Indians were not natural horsemen.
As such there was simply no option for Indians but to import horses – at great cost. All attempts to breed high quality domestic horses failed miserably, even in the British India era. As a result even the British in India had to import horses from Arabia, Australia and South Africa.
There are arguments that the horse was known even in the Indus Valley Civilisation. I'm not convinced about this, but even if this is true, the issue is the WAR QUALITY of the indigenous horse. It was clearly unsuitable for war; more like a pack mule. It served some purposes, but not the vital purposes of defeating the enemy in war.