[LottiFurmann]

There was some inherent weakness in them. Can any one of our brothers here idenify the weakness?

mala: First, you have to understand that there was no India as we know it today before independence. Even when the British ruled there were princely states that had their own laws except for paying taxes to the British. That was also true when the moguls ruled. The Moguls and the British were good at playing one princely state against the other in exchange for 'protection' and expansion of a favored princely state. When India became independent most of the princely states acceded to the union. Maharaja of Kashmir was wavering which lead to ' Kashmir problem'. Travancore Maharaja was said to have considered declaring independence. Nizam of Hyderabad flatly refused and took his case to UN security council. India had to march its army into the state of Hyderabad to defeat Nizam's army. It was under force the Nizam acceded. Now, you know the weakness. Simply put, there was no unity in diversity. In other words, Indian princes (maharajas,rajas and other feudal lords) did not learn from Mogul experience. For them 'enemy's enemy was a friend'.

That also means genocide was not by moguls alone. One Hindu princely state was killing citizens of another princely state with the support of moguls !