The Myth of Thousand Years Rule

[Muloghonto]

56 minutes ago, Green Monster said:

As expected, bhagoda 

So no evidence to present from you then ?

 

[MechEng]

10 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Central Asia is tough place. You have to be cruel, hard and rusty to survive the rugged plains of that region. No wonder most Invaders from that area were barbaric.

Well, actually before the times of Atilla the Hun or Gengis Khan, Central Asia/Eastern Europe used to be very strong Buddhist zones. But you're right, if you study invasions pre modern times (before guns or other sophisticated weapons were used), the Arabs or Romans largely relied on strategy to subdue their enemies, while Central Asians never believed in strategy or any intellectual approach but brute force. It can make a good case study as to how once a Buddhist land turned into a region producing horrors like Timur, Gengis Khan, Hulagu Khan and Atilla the Hun.

[MechEng]

7 hours ago, Gollum said:

I agree with you 100% that religion made a huge impact in the various tussles we had with them. Even before Battle of Khanwa to raise the morale of his troops Babur rallied them in the name of Islam and declared jihad on the infidel Rajputs. Fighting for a greater cause always magnifies one's strength and it was no different in medieval India. I have to side with you and not mulo on this one, IMO cause was a greater motivation than money. This helped the Muslims win unwinnable wars and have that ruthless killer instinct that we Hindus lacked. Ofc it was just one of many reasons they whacked us repeatedly but still a perfectly valid one. Outdated military system, poor tactics/strategy, inferior weapons technology, decadent civilization, disunity, poor quality of political leadership, no greater cause.....all contributed to our defeat. You are spot on about the 84 crore life cycles part , I think dharmic concepts like karma, niyati, vasudeva kutumbakam, tolerance etc royally screwed with our heads especially on the fields of battles against super motivated bloodthirsty adversaries. Our lack of killer instinct has been a recurring feature for centuries now, be it sheltering Afghan POWs in Maratha camps amidst 1000s of unarmed, untrained, weak devotees in 3rd battle of Panipat or the abject release of 93000 Pakistani POWs in 1971 without extracting our pound of flesh. 

 

This may be a controversial opinion on ICF but I will extend your assertion even to the sporting field, especially cricket and hockey where we have big rivalries with Pakistan. What you saw in the medieval battlefield, you can also see in our cricket/hockey matches. Pakistani players rally in the name of religion which came out in the open in Shoaib Malik's speech post 2007 WT20 final. When they were better than us in the 80s and 90s they absolutely hammered us in these 2 sports, no mercy. But when we became better post 2000s the H2H is fairly even despite the huge difference in quality between the 2 sides. Our big players either under perform or play just to their potential but their inferior players raise their game by 2 notches when it comes to India, eg Aaqib Javed, Salman Butt, Shoaib Malik, Ijaz Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Fakhar Zaman, Junaid Khan and many others. Their ordinary players play like crap whole year and when it comes to India it is like jihad on the cricket field. Imran Khan used to introduce unknown players against us in the 80s and out of nowhere those guys would obliterate our ATG players like Gavaskar, Kapil. Just seeing us on the other side makes them more organized, disciplined, super charged and the former 2 aren't characteristic traits of their  cricket team. Even look at the margins of defeats they often win big against us while we beat them narrowly even when the opportunity presents itself before us to give them a hiding. Same story repeats itself in hockey, but the rivalry is even more lopsided. At least in cricket we can bring in excuses like ball tampering, umpiring, fixing etc. In hockey even in the 60s and early 70s when we were an ATG team we would regularly lose to a far inferior Pak team all across the world. In the 80s and 90s when they were better they massacred us (1982 Delhi Asian Games final we lost 1-7 to them and PM Indira Gandhi and entire cabinet was in attendance, after the massacre our humiliated players wailed like babies on the turf and Pak players repeatedly mocked our crowds and VIP box with their gestures...one of the most painful sporting moments for India) and in the 21st century they lead the H2H in spite of having a poor quality team, poor funding/coaching, almost nil sponsorship, no league with European players, no home game etc. How shameful is that? We have lost all the test series' against them in the 2000s and I have seen their amateur rookies run circles around our superstars. Even in the recent Commonwealth Games their * team held the 2nd seed India to a 2-2 draw after struggling to a draw against the bottom seed Wales the previous day. We led 2-0 at half time and dominated the game, 2nd half they came to the turf possessed while we played like cowardly chickens confined to our own half and made zero shots on their goalpost, which is very very very rare at that level. Sadly the result wasn't the disappointment, it was how our players conducted themselves on the field. The body language of our boys was so bad in the 2nd half, that too against the 2nd worst team of the tournament, can't imagine the converse if a superior Pak leads 2-0 at half time against an inferior Indian team. 

 

I know that we can't totally equate this Indo-Pak sporting dynamic to our medieval history (no matter how much they scream, modern day Pakistanis aren't the descendants of erstwhile invaders). But there are parallels in the sense that one side plays fanatically for a cause and the other side is more chilled out. Raising the banner of jihad or fighting for Islam lifted our enemies whilst also striking a psychological blow on our side. In the lead up to the battle of Khanwa, the Mongols were scared of the Rajputs and were reluctant to fight the battle against a numerically superior, brave, united Rajput confederacy...until Babur stepped in. Babur broke all his wine cups and jars, raised the banner of jihad and suddenly his soldiers had a mental switch. Watching them in battle, esp their zeal and ruthlessness even had a psychological effect on our soldiers, Silhadi of Malwa switched over to Babur camp and by the end of the battle the shaken Rajputs including top leadership had to flee for dear life. The generals were so scarred from that battle that when the great Rana Sanga started making plans for renewing the fight with Babur, his own chiefs assassinated him because they were that scared of the Mongols. I feel for Rana Sanga here, a lone brave Hindu King who took the battle to the Mongols, betrayed and poisoned by his own men just because they were wusses. 

Kya Gollum...itna overthinking? Where was that jihadi instinct in 2003 World Cup game when our batters chased down 273 in 45 overs? Considering that it was a do or die game for Pakistan.

[Gollum]

5 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

No way I am killing myself for some money. Never EVER!

 

Mulo I completely disagree with you know. COMPLETELY!!

 Religion was the most important factor. Sadly our Cbse/Ncrt books will never say this openely!!!!

 

Look at all the sucide bombers, terrorists, how are they motivated to kill themselves. Purely cuz of the holy book. Hindus in general believe that human life the most important cycle and they would not easily kill someone or themselves for some king. 

 

Rajput or Hindu soldiers or even the praja (ordinary citizens) were never committed unlike Muslim citizens and soldiers. Hindu soldiers or citizens knew they could live their life under a Muslim kings but Muslims soldiers or citizens would never live under a Hindu Raja. (Reminds you of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechanya no?)

 

regardless, I am not going to argue over this. I am very very strongview on this point. 

This.

 

There is another very important battle in medieval Indian history, the Battle of Talikota in 1565. The last standing Hindu empire of the subcontinent and probably the greatest Hindu empire in medieval India succumbed to the confederacy of 5 Deccan Sultanates (Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, Golconda, Bidar, Berar). We don't study much about Vijaynagar Empire but its importance in Indian history can't be negated. It was the wall standing against Islamic invasions in Southern India, the final frontier for Muslims. It was not just a great military power but a true Hindu Empire unlike in case of Rajputana (could never form empires because of short sightedness). An economic powerhouse, brilliant administration, Hindu architecture, literature (not just Kannada, Telugu, Tamil but also saw a Sanskrit revival under the patronage of the rulers), Carnatic Music....all wonderful things unified by Hinduism, indeed unlike in case of Rajputs this empire was formed on the basis of Hinduism as the only glue binding the entire populace. Regionalism like we see today in South India was unheard of in Vijaynagar, didn't matter if someone was Tamil or Telugu or Kannada, it transcended linguistic barriers and the rulers were extremely tolerant and fair. Also none of the clannism BS that affected the Rajputs so badly. 

 

Vijaynagar's main enemy was the Bahamani Sultanate (off shoot of Tughluqs, based around modern day Maharashtra) which was a Shia dynasty. These 2 powers were locked in battle for 2 centuries before the Vijaynagar Empire under Krishnadevaraya ended the Sultanate. Bahamani Empire broke up into 5 Sultanates collectively called the Deccan Sultanates. The Bahamani rulers were very intolerant, massacred many Hindus and even Muslims of other sects. So many Muslims ran over to Vijaynagar side and found refuge. Since Vijaynagar rulers were secular and tolerant the Muslims flourished under their rule, they were allowed to build mosques, trade, live as Vijaynagar citizens. There are also records of Telugu Muslim literature (not Persian/Turkic/Urdu) in Vijaynagar Empire, that's how much integrated the Muslims were. Muslims thrived in Vijaynagar and even today amidst the ruins of Hampi you can find mosques, dargahs and Muslim residential quarters...all built by a  high ranking officer of Krishnadevaraya. Now the Deccan Sultans mostly fought among themselves but an opportunity arose when there was political turmoil in the Hindu Empire. So leaving aside their petty squabbles they joined forces to bring down the kafirs. The Vijayanagar army had 2 high ranking Muslim generals, the Gilani brothers. During the battle Vijaynagar army was having the upper hand but out of nowhere all the Muslim soldiers of Vijaynagar army turned against the Hindus, this tipped the scales of the battle in the favor of the Sultanate confederacy because of total surprise in the other unit. Can you imagine an Indo-Pak war tomorrow where all the Sikh regiments turn against other regiments (Gurkha, Rajput, Garhwal....) all of a sudden with India in an advantageous position? Imagine the pandemonium such a betrayal would cause, that is exactly what happened that day in Talikota, the greatest backstabbing imaginable. The soldiers fed and fattened by the Hindu King, the Muslim generals honored and recognized by the Hindu King....without any plausible reason apart from religion just switched over to the enemy side. They weren't bribed (like Mir Jafar), they weren't on the losing side (Silhadi), they weren't discriminated against by the dispensation........EXACTLY LIKE YOU SAID unlike Hindus, the Muslim soldiers couldn't serve a Hindu Raja. What followed was Gilanis' beheading of the Vijaynagar ruler Ramaraya on the battlefield, confusion/chaos in Vijaynagar ranks and a complete rout from a winning position a little while back...one of the most stunning turnarounds in military history. The Muslim armies then laid siege on the capital city, totally destroying it. The loot and plunder carried on for weeks and every single Hindu was put to sword. Muslim citizens of the empire turned on their Hindu neighbors and joined in the killing spree. What was the one of the greatest cities of the medieval world, undoubtedly the richest in Asia...laid to dust and ashes in a matter of weeks, a complete holocaust cum temple destruction orgy for the Muslims. Can you think of a Hindu equivalent of Gilanis in the 700 odd years of Muslim rule, many Hindus served as generals to Muslim rulers and Hindus were discriminated against quite openly...still no rebellion by either the Hindu employees of the state or Hindu subjects. They were obedient slaves to the Muslim masters, doing as they were told, bending over backwards to please those in power. As you can see in Vijaynagar's example Muslims thrived under Hindu reign yet never fully accepted their position, they couldn't be ruled by kafirs...they were burning inside waiting for a change in guard and that opportune moment arrived in 1565, after a long wait. In our history books we read about Jaichand and Mir Jafar but never about the Gilani brothers, we are taught a whitewashed version of history. I am sure most Southies today don't know how Vijaynagar's end came about and who was responsible. Imagine the number of lies we tell ourselves to remain politically correct and polite while the truth is staring at our faces. Whole world is affected by this problem of suspect loyalty of Muslims be it Chechnya, Kenya, Philippines, Europe, India or 50 other countries. We can't spell it aloud else we will be accused of being bigots but for Muslims religion is supreme and they are quite fanatical about it. There are many potential Gilanis earning bread and butter in USA/France/Kenya/India, living a great life, enjoying all the facilities the country has to offer but secretly praying for an Islamic theocracy. As long as they are minority they yearn for democracy and human rights,  take full advantage of liberalism/tolerance the host country has to offer. They will be consolidating their position, rising up the ranks in public life, producing babies by the dozens to enforce demographic change, helping out only fellow Muslims via charity/illegal immigration/riots yada yada but when the demography reaches a certain threshold you know what follows right? 

 

I feel very bad to type this but IMO Hindus were and still are subservient people, we are ok being ruled by outsiders be it Muslims or Europeans or even recently under an Italian lady. Not only are Hindus disunited but also meek, these qualities made us easy to rule over for so many centuries. We must learn from history, if we have flaws we need to rectify them because history is our greatest teacher, history repeats itself in cycles and we (or our future generations) will find ourselves in a similar predicament at some point in time, then the choice will be whether to accept things as they are or to avoid repeating mistakes of our forefathers. 

[Gollum]

19 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Kya Gollum...itna overthinking? Where was that jihadi instinct in 2003 World Cup game when our batters chased down 273 in 45 overs? Considering that it was a do or die game for Pakistan.

Historically they have punched above their weight while we have underachieved against them, isolated examples can't prove otherwise. That is why I gave examples of 2 sports, cricket and hockey which have historical rivalries, also 2 sports which both the (otherwise minnows in sports) countries care about and are actually good at. 

[MechEng]

55 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Historically they have punched above their weight while we have underachieved against them, isolated examples can't prove otherwise. That is why I gave examples of 2 sports, cricket and hockey which have historical rivalries, also 2 sports which both the (otherwise minnows in sports) countries care about and are actually good at. 

Gollumji, since you are glorifying jihadi instinct I would redirect you to a quote:

 

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu, Art of War.

[Gollum]

9 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Gollumji, since you are glorifying jihadi instinct I would redirect you to a quote:

 

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu, Art of War.

I am not glorifying jihadi instinct, my original premise was the use of religious cause in mobilizing all resources towards achieving a common target eg Battle of Khanwa. I also theorized about sports teams using the banner of religion to play beyond capability against a certain opponent, may be I am right or may be not....just my 2 cents on a forum, it's not my thesis for a research paper .

 

I have read the 'Art of War' by Sun Tzu and I don't agree with most of the stuff there. May be it was a revolutionary book a couple of millenia ago but applied today I am not so sure. The book is superficial and so is the quote. You want to subdue the war without fighting, in today's world there may be possibilities of accomplishing the task. But how would you stop the invaders without fighting in say 1400 A.D. Imagine Timur and his barbarian horde have decided to do dome sightseeing in Delhi. I make you in charge and give you all resources the richest Delhi Sultan could possess (army, gold, weapons, scientists, food supplies...)please try to apply Sun Tzu's principle and come out unscathed. 

[Tibarn]

Sports success is more associated with GDP per capita than anything else. The people who win at the Olympics are basically all the richer countries.

 

Bakistan's success in the two sports in Hockey/Cricket relative to India can be explained by the fact that Bakistan had a higher per capita GDP than India for most of post independence history, especially in PPP terms.

[Gollum]

5 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Sports success is more associated with GDP per capita than anything else. The people who win at the Olympics are basically all the richer countries.

 

Bakistan's success in the two sports in Hockey/Cricket relative to India can be explained by the fact that Bakistan had a higher per capita GDP than India for most of post independence history, especially in PPP terms.

We were better in hockey in the 50s, 60s (they still had winning H2H) and early 70s. From mid 70s to 2000 they were better, then both followed different paths. More than us improving their performance started taking a steep dip, Pakistan's state of hockey since 2000 is miserable. Their players weren't paid for years on the stretch because of the dire state of their federation.  When they beat us in the Champions Trophy in Bhubaneswar 4-5 years back their players hadn't been paid for 3 years. Hockey India offered to step in to cover their expenses. They didn't have any coach for a few years in the mid 2000s because of security concerns and state of their hockey scene, till recently they were being coached by absolute clowns. They don't have home matches, their stadiums are dilapidated, they don't have a league like us where they can play alongside European players (and they aren't allowed in our league), even their demand in European leagues is nil because of their decline. They haven't even won any major trophy this millennium, their junior teams are crap and their ranking has been consistently below us. We OTOH have won the junior world cup twice this millennium (tied with Germany), have a huge talent pool, best coaching staff, a professional Hockey India, top training facilities, the best hockey league in the world, well paid personnel, good sponsorship...everything one can hope for. 

 

Yet in the 21st century this is our H2H:

India 30 Pak 35......improving in our favour of late but not good enough because we have been consistently ranked above them

We played 2 test series (6 and 8 matches wallah), both won by them

They have H2H edge in tournament finals

They lead in Olympics, we lead in WC, they lead in Champions Trophy, we lead in Asian Games...so in major tournaments we are even

 

I know for sure that we are better, but is it translating to results? Against  top European teams, Australia, Argentina, South Korea etc we have a much better record compared to Pakistan, we have had more podium finishes yet in H2H matches we are lagging. I am crazy about field hockey and have watched most matches of the Indian team for almost 15 years now. My observation is that Pak lifts its game tremendously against us while we tend to play lazily, not enough vigour. We also tend to choke lots of matches against them by letting in last minute goals or conceding soft PCs. This is changing in the last 3-4 years because we have too much talent in our ranks while Pak is almost entering minnow status. But still we need to be more ruthless like they were when they were a better team in the 80s and 90s.     

[Singh bling]

45 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Sports success is more associated with GDP per capita than anything else. The people who win at the Olympics are basically all the richer countries.

 

Bakistan's success in the two sports in Hockey/Cricket relative to India can be explained by the fact that Bakistan had a higher per capita GDP than India for most of post independence history, especially in PPP terms.

Not true for all sports , Jamaica produces world's best sprinters and its GDP is nowhere at top.Moreover Windies dominated test cricket over much gdp nations of England and Australia

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, Singh bling said:

Not true for all sports , Jamaica produces world's best sprinters and its GDP is nowhere at top.Moreover Windies dominated test cricket over much gdp nations of England and Australia

Also we had lesser per capita GDP compared to Pak all the while  till 10-15 years ago. But we have always had more success than them in Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, South Asian Games etc. In popular sports like football, tennis, basketball, volleyball etc we were always better than them. Even in hockey and cricket we were better in the 1st 20-25 years after independence. Your example about Jamaca is spot on. Same with countries like Kenya, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran...all developing countries that have done very well. GDP per capita is important for sporting success but not the be all, end all. 

[Singh bling]

4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Also we had lesser per capita GDP compared to Pak all the while  till 10-15 years ago. But we have always had more success than them in Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, South Asian Games etc. In popular sports like football, tennis, basketball, volleyball etc we were always better than them. Even in hockey and cricket we were better in the 1st 20-25 years after independence. Your example about Jamaca is spot on. Same with countries like Kenya, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran...all developing countries that have done very well. GDP per capita is important for sporting success but not the be all, end all. 

Sports has lot to do with genetics and diet, this is the reason we are seeing rise of Afghan players but BD has so much difficulty to improve their cricket.Bangladesh has everything in South Asia to be a good cricketing nation but they fail again and again O/W there is no other explanation why Bangladesh can't produce any sportsmen

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

No way I am killing myself for some money. Never EVER!

 

Mulo I completely disagree with you on this. COMPLETELY!!

 Religion was the most important factor. Sadly our Cbse/NCERT books will never say this openely!!!!

 

Look at all the sucide bombers, terrorists, how are they motivated to kill themselves. Purely cuz of the holy book. Hindus in general believe that human life the most important cycle and they would not easily kill someone or themselves for some king. 

 

Rajput or Hindu soldiers or even the praja (ordinary citizens) were never committed unlike Muslim citizens and soldiers. Hindu soldiers or citizens knew they could live their life under a new Muslim king but Muslims soldiers or citizens would never live under a Hindu Raja. (Reminds you of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechanya no?)

 

regardless, I am not going to argue over this. I am very very strongview on this point. 

The point of going to war, is to win. not to die. 

Soldiers who have something to look forward to are the ones who fight the hardest. 

 

if religion and fanaticism was the biggest factor in making a good soldier, Rome wouldn't have existed. neither would the Russians- with far higher levels of fanaticism & 'religious fervor' get whacked by Germany in WWI.

Another example of religious fervor not mattering in warfare over professionalism is the battle Legnica.

Tutonic knights with extreme religious fervor came up vs the Mongols - who had no religious fervor- and got utterly annihilated.

 

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, MechEng said:

Well, actually before the times of Atilla the Hun or Gengis Khan, Central Asia/Eastern Europe used to be very strong Buddhist zones. But you're right, if you study invasions pre modern times (before guns or other sophisticated weapons were used), the Arabs or Romans largely relied on strategy to subdue their enemies, while Central Asians never believed in strategy or any intellectual approach but brute force. It can make a good case study as to how once a Buddhist land turned into a region producing horrors like Timur, Gengis Khan, Hulagu Khan and Atilla the Hun.

Central Asia was buddhist only in their settlements. Ie, in the few cities in central Asia, buddhism flourished.

However, for the vast majority of the region - which is mostly steppe land and desert - amongst the nomads, shamanism & sun-worship were the dominant ideologies.

 

Buddhism in central Asia wasn't destroyed by the muslims. it was destroyed by the Hepthalites - the ancestors of the Abdalis, who were also known as 'white huns' ( safed huna) in our literature. 

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

The point of going to war, is to win. not to die. 

Soldiers who have something to look forward to are the ones who fight the hardest. 

 

if religion and fanaticism was the biggest factor in making a good soldier, Rome wouldn't have existed. neither would the Russians- with far higher levels of fanaticism & 'religious fervor' get whacked by Germany in WWI.

Another example of religious fervor not mattering in warfare over professionalism is the battle Legnica.

Tutonic knights with extreme religious fervor came up vs the Mongols - who had no religious fervor- and got utterly annihilated.

 

Religion may not be biggest factor but still it is one of the factor o/w how can you explain the rise of sikhs as ruling force after the creation of khalsa in 1699

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Singh bling said:

Religion may not be biggest factor but still it is one of the factor o/w how can you explain the rise of sikhs as ruling force after the creation of khalsa in 1699

 

Rise of Sikhs have more to do with the attrocities they suffered and charismatic leadership they united under, than religion itself. 

 

if religion is actually a performance enhancer, can you explain to me then, why is it that through ancient times till now, professional soldiers ALWAYS outperform an army of fanatics, given that their skills and leadership abilities are more or less the same ?

 

[Singh bling]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Rise of Sikhs have more to do with the attrocities they suffered and charismatic leadership they united under, than religion itself. 

 

if religion is actually a performance enhancer, can you explain to me then, why is it that through ancient times till now, professional soldiers ALWAYS outperform an army of fanatics, given that their skills and leadership abilities are more or less the same ?

 

I am not saying a professional non religious army will loose to religious fanatics but a religion giving more importance to fighting and imporatnce to shaheedi will always have an edge over other religion where ahimsa is taught.

 

Let me ask you how many Jain warriors history had produced may be very few or none .If you raise a child with telling him that killing an insect will get you in hell over raising child to whom you tell that dieing for Religion in war is best glory then which child has more chance of becoming good soldier

Edited May 8, 2018 by Singh bling

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

I am not saying a professional non religious army will loose to religious fanatics but a religion giving more importance to fighting and imporatnce to shaheedi will always have an edge over other religion where ahimsa is taught.

yes, that is true.

While Romans for example, were not overtly religious - definitely not fanatical like Islamists, they did believe that Mars (their God of war) was kind to them and their city, if they met their enemies face2face and, to quote Cicero ' walked in their blood, spilled in combat, under the eyes of Mars himself'.

 

 

 

 

[randomGuy]

@Gollum India produces better wrestlers, boxers, weight lifters, kabaddi players etc. And beats them comfortably here. 

If there was rugby match, we would probably win there easily. I think you can see how cricket/hockey is different from these sports. 

 

@ Different topic

Regarding GDP per capita relation with no. Of medals by @Tibarn, that would be largely correct. Although some exceptions will be there. In Olympics, I guess water related events constitute 30-35% of the total medal count which is why we see 1 guy winning upto 7-8 golds in a single Olympic. This imo should not be happening. Swimming etc. Should have less medal count. 

 

[Singh bling]

7 hours ago, randomGuy said:

@Gollum India produces better wrestlers, boxers, weight lifters, kabaddi players etc. And beats them comfortably here. 

If there was rugby match, we would probably win there easily. I think you can see how cricket/hockey is different from these sports. 

 

@ Different topic

Regarding GDP per capita relation with no. Of medals by @Tibarn, that would be largely correct. Although some exceptions will be there. In Olympics, I guess water related events constitute 30-35% of the total medal count which is why we see 1 guy winning upto 7-8 golds in a single Olympic. This imo should not be happening. Swimming etc. Should have less medal count. 

 

The sports you mentioned don't have any rivalry,people simply don't   care about them