[Reader-list] Iconoclasm in Kashmir -Motives and Magnitude-I

[rashneek kher]

On November 9,07 our learned friend Shudda had posted a series of four
pieces titled" Annotations to the History of Iconoclasm in Kashmir".This was
a response to my posting on various aspects of Kashmir's chequered past.

At the outset I must admire that Shudda has really worked hard to read all
the books/texts that I had referred to in my postings.I must also make it
clear that at point in time did I "admonish" Shudda.If that's how it has
come across to the forum or Shudda I apologize for the same. I only
suggested Shudda to read the texts to know the truth.

Partly due to lack of time on my hands and party due to the futility of
postings I had so far restrained myself from posting a reply or even
critically evaluating what our dear friend had written. God be praised he
showered us with some Holidays(Eid and Christmas) and I got some time to
critically and dispassionately examine what Shudda has written or the
conclusions he has drawn on the basis of his understanding of the various
texts which are being referred to.

Before I begin to put forth my perspective on Shudda's observations I have a
request to make to Shudda.In the course of our discussions we should stay
clear of getting personal and using words like "Kshmendra haunts this forum"
or "Rashneek has desires to be acknowledged as a poet" or any such
phraseology. What desires I or anyone else is no-ones business here unless I
don't prey on someone's desires. We are not politicians and our differences
are purely from an ideological perspective. We can discuss without getting
personal.

Shudda's Deepawali wish has come true.There is less noise here….more light,
well I don't know.



*Part-I*



Let us first try and look at what Shudda is trying to drive home.



1.Barbarianism,iconoclasm and subjugation of the masses (especially those
not belonging to their religion) hasn't been exclusive to Muslim Kings
alone.To support his arguments Shudda has given various examples from
Kalhana's Rajatarangni as well as selective self-suiting references from Jia
Lal Kilam's"History of Kashmiri Pandits".He however for various reasons
chooses to ignore Jonaraja,Srivara,Shuka and Prajabhatta as works of lesser
importance and hence not credible pieces of historiography.He makes no
reference to Baharistan-i-Shahi.He also discards Advaitavadini Kaul's
"Buddhist Savants of Kashmir" as irrelevant for this discussion.He refers to
Romila Thapar , AL Basham and Marxist historian  Harbans Mukhiya.



2.Rashneek Kher has painted a picture of Kashmiri Pandits as eternal victims
which according to Shudda is far from correct.



3.He indulges in a little bit of mud slinging or pun at everyone in this
forum who do not fall in line with the general ideology of the forum, but
that aspect I will stay clear of since I have already requested Shudda's
co-operation for keeping this impersonal.



4.He brings rather drags Kshmemdra-the poet into the discussion.



Let us also summarize what he advertently or inadvertently chose to ignore
or has missed:



1.Motives for Iconoclasm and iconoclasm,selective persecution on the basis
of faith or ideology & its frequency in the pre-Islamic vis-a-vis Islamic
rule in Kashmir.



2.Kashmir's contribution to Literarture, History, Culture,Various schools of
Philosophy, Music,Fine Arts,Mahayana Buddhism, Shaivism, before the advent
of Islam and the fact that not even one great scholar or new thought came
into existence post 14th Century.Lal Ded probably being the last "new
thought" on Kashmir's firmament.This also needs to be discussed for it
describes how an open society promotes scholarship, culture, art and
literature while a dark closed society throttles it.



I shall now present my hypothesis as follows'



"Acts of Iconoclasm have taken place both in pre-Islamic(approx 3400 years)
as well as Islamic period, however the magnitude of iconoclasm in the 400
odd years of Islamic rule of Kashmir has been massive and pointed at a
certain faith in order to impose Islam and bring down idolatory. Iconoclasm
in pre-Islamic period has been extremely sparse (only 4 kings resorting to
Iconoclasm) and had happened for reasons of greed, wickedness, corruption
due to absolute power that the monarchs had and in some cases under the
influence of the company the king had as was in the case of Harsha'the
Turuska Iconoclast".

There is no credible historical evidence to suggest that persecution of
subjects (in the pre-Islamic period) based on their faith had taken place
while there is a whole lot of historical evidence to suggest that
persecution(in the Salatin era) of non-muslim subjects happened at a large
scale which resulted in 6 exoduses of the Hindu community from the
valley.There is evidence also to support that whichever of the two Islamic
sects(Shia's or Sunni's)was in power subjugated the other but meted out
special torment on non-muslim subjects"



Before I proceed to prove my hypothesis,I take this to explain to the
forum(or the ones who would like to read this) some issues which Shudda had
raised both with reference to sources of Kashmir's history as well as how I
(Rashneek Kher) viewed it.



*1.Kshmendra and his credentials*



I had made no reference to Kshmendra as a source of History.It seems to me
that Shudda could not resist the temptation of raking up Kshmendra-the poet
to have some fun poked at me ,Pawan Durani and Kshmendra Kaul.

Shudda ridicules Kshmendra the Kashmiri poet by making repeated references
to Kalhana mentioning that not even one of his list of kings is free of
error.Now Shudda doesn't become a great detective by exposing Kshmendra the
poet's errors in writing history.I am sure my learned friend knows that no
one considers Kshemndra a source of history.Hence this rather irrelevant
reference to Kshmendra was but unwanted and could  only have been raised to
divert the course of discussion or raise some muck. Notwithstanding
Kshmendra being a poor historian, I would like the forum (or at-least the
one's who care to read this)to know that Kshmendra occupies a place of pride
in History of Sanskrit Literature.



This is what Dr.Sunil Chandra Ray has to say about Kshmendra.My request once
again to Shudda that one should stay clear of muck racking about a literary
genius.In such cases ignorance is not bliss and intentional distortion does
no one any good.



*Ksemendra was a versatile genius. He wrote poems, narratives, didactic and
satiric sketches and treatises on rhetoric and prosody. His Bharatamanjari,
Ramayanamanjari, Brhathathamanjari, Padyakadambari (lost) and
Avadanakalpalata are, respectively, the abstracts of the two great epics,
the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, Gunadhya Brhatkatha, Bana's Kadambari and
the Buddhist Avadanas. All these were written in verse. Among his other
works, known only by name, are Sasivamsamahakavya, Amrtarangakavya,
Avasarasara, Muktavali Vatsyayana-sutra-sara, Lalitaratnamale, Kanakajanaki,
Nrpavali, Lavanyavati and Pavanapancasika. His known and printed works
include Nitikalpataru, Carucarya, Desopadesa, Narmamala, Nitilata,
Vinayavalli. Darpadalana, Sevyasevakopadesa, Munimatamimamsa,
Caturvarga-Samgraha Aucityavicaracarca Kavikanthabharana and
Dasavataracarita.*

*In Samayamatrka, one of his most original poems, he describes the arts and
trickeries of the harlot. The merit of the work lies in its vivid
description of droll life painted with great sharpness of phrasing and
characterisation. His Sevyasevakopadesa contains shrewd reflection on the
relation between master and servant. The Carucarya, a century of moral
aphorisms, gives a pleasing picture of virtue's ways of pleasantness in
contemporary **Kashmir**. The Caturvargasamgraha deals with the four objects
of human life, dharma, arthal, **kama** and moksa. The Darpadalana is a
denunciatory harrangue against human pride which is said to have sprung from
birth, wealth, learning, beauty, velour, charity and asceticism. They are
dealt separately in each chapter with illustrations on each type of boaster.
The Kalavilasa is a satirical poem of ten cantos in which Muladeva, the
legendary master of trickery instructs his young disciple in the arts of
roguery. Ksemendra's Desopadesa and Narmamala, like Kalavilasa, also
represent his satirical proclivity of mind. In the former, he dilates upon
the daily life of different depraved sections of people inhabiting the
valley such as cheat, miser, prostitute, bawd, ostentatious voluptuary
students of Gauda, old man marrying young wives, degraded Saiva Guru, the
ignorant grammarians etc. The Narmamala is a sharp satire on the misrule and
oppression of the Kayasthas, before the time of Ananta. In his
Aucityavicaracarca, Ksemendra tries to propound that propriety or aucitya is
the soul of poetry and the figures of speech, if they overstep their proper
limits, hurt the rasa. In the Kavikanthabharana he discuses with the
subjects of kavitvaprapti, siksa, camatkrti, gunadosabodha and
paricayaprapti. Ksemendra's Dasavataracarita gives in regular Kavya style,
an account of the ten incarnations of Visnu, viz., Matsya, Kurma, Varaha,
Nrsimha, Vamana, Parasurama, Rama, Krsna, Buddha and Karkya, which is
nothing but an abstraction of the Puranic stories. *

This is what chroniclers of Kashmir have to say about him



*Dr. Keith called him a polymath while Dr. Stein' has appended the epithet
polymister with his name*.



This tribute goes a long way in establishing that he did not confine himself
to a single form of literary expression but tried his pen over many other
forms with equal force and effect. However, in all humility he calls himself
'Vyasadasa' the servant of Vyasa of Mahabharata fame.



*2.Rinchen's conversion and Shudda's understanding of that important episode
of **Kashmir**'s history*

* *

Due the importance of Rinchana's conversion as a significant historical
event in Kashmir's history I will deal with it right in the beginning.



Shudda observes



*With the rise of the Salatins
(the reign of Rinchen, a Tibetan Buddhist who converted to Islam because
the Brahmin orthodoxy disdained him, cannot really be considered the
reign of a Muslim king in its entirety and may be seen only as a
prologue, or as an interregnum prior to the real decline of Hindu power
in Kashmir, primarily as a result of palace intrigues.) It is necessary
to remember that **Kashmir** is a part of **South Asia** where the rise of
Islam
did not accompany a military invasion, but occurred largely due to the
example set by missionaries and religious divines.*

* *

*Let us look at truth now.*

* *

This is what Baharistan-i-Shahi tells us about Rinchana's conversion.



*Rinchan's conversion*

*During the early stages of his career, Rinchan showed no inclination
towards any of the existing religions.[31] It was in the fitness of things
that he embraced one of these religions and vigorously prayed to God the
Merciful.
At this time only a handful of people in **Kashmir** had embraced Islam.
Most of the people were either infidels or dissemblers. But when Rinchan
thought of embracing a religion and associating himself with a community he
made enquiries about the principles and laws of their religion from the
savants among the infidels and the learned men of the times. They beseeched
him to join their fold.[32] The Muslims also put before him the principles
and teachings of the Islamic faith and invited him to embrace their
religion. But owing to serious differences between these two religions and
the disagreement [prevailing] among the two religious groups, he was not
able to reach any decision. Each community considered its religion the true
one and each group induced him to embrace its religion. He was in a fix
because of the serious differences and glaring contradictions in the views
of these communities. Their heated discussions and discourses led him to no
satisfactory conclusion. However, blessed as he was with a dispensation for
justice, for 'God helps those who help themselves,' he found the right path.
He firmly decided that he would embrace the religion of the first man he
would meet in the street after coming out of his house the next morning. He
also resolved to join the community to which that man belonged. Next morning
he came out of his house. The rays of the sun of divine guidance, bringing
every object from darkness to light, liberated him from the darkness of
ignorance and disbelief; for all of a sudden, in the neighbourhood of his
mansion he saw a dervish offering namaz (the Muslim way of praying), with
full devotion. He went towards him. When the dervish had finished his
prayer, Rinchan held him by his hand and brought him to his house. Then he
called in an interpreter who knew their languages. He asked the dervish his
name and then about his religion and the sect he belonged to. The dervish
told him that his name was Bulbul Qalandar, that his religion was Islam[33]
and that his community was that of Muslims. He disclosed to him that he was
a member of the sect of Shah Ne'matullah Wali. He then mentioned to him some
of the miracles performed by the Prophet, the virtues and superior qualities
of 'Ali, the Imam, and lastly, the extraordinary feats of spirituality
performed by Shah Ne'matullah Wali. His (Rinchan's) heart had previously
been blackened by the beliefs of a false community.[34] Now he subjected
himself to the teachings of the religion of Mustafa (Prophet), and the right
principles of the truthful path of Murtaza (Ali), and embraced Islamic
religion with sincerity and conviction.[35] He gave up once for all the
false and corrupt religions. *

Baharistan-i-Shahi clearly says that both religions tried to invite him to
its fold.



Abul-Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari mentions that Rinchana accepted Islam because of
Shah-Mir.Refer Vol II page 386.



While it is true that Kashmir did not have armies of Arabs or Persians
(although Zulchu did march in with his armies in Kashmir but the purpose was
to loot and not conquer land or convert its inhabitants. I am saying this
despite the fact that he took thousands of Kashmiri men and women as slaves
all of whom perished in a snow storm at Devasar in Anantanag) marching into
its land but as far as conversions due to examples set by missionaries and
Dervishes are concerned, it is mere hogwash to a great extent. How Islam was
spread is clear from the Part-II of my paper. You will see how Hindus were
converted by brute force and how atrocities were inflicted by the Osama's of
those days.

* *

Contd…..



3.Let us now move to what else Shudda has to say/comment/observe

I will try and give my perspective point by point to Shudda's observations

Shudda writes*" In writing back, I was trying to critique the role of
the eternal and*

*timeless victim that Rashneek Kher had ascribed to the figure of the*

*Kashmiri Pandit by selectively quoting passages that speak of Muslim*

*iconoclasm and persecution, while neglecting to speak either of Muslim*

*patronage (as in the case of Zain Al Abedin, whom Rashneek Kher*

*acknowledged only after I pointed out the example of Zain al Abedin) of*

*Hindu religious practices, or of instances where non Muslim rulers in*

*Kashmir have enacted policies of iconoclasm, temple destruction and*

*persecution - of Buddhists and others.*

* *

Shudda observes that it is he who induced me into accepting that
Zainul-Abidin was a just or a tolerant king.

Now here is an article I wrote for Merinews on Aug 26,2007.which is
many days before this discussion happened on SARAI.

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp;jsessionid=C16DF248CD59DBB4A953073757EC775E?articleID=126078

*I observe *

*"However the rule of Sultan Zaina-ul-abidin (Badshah) was a period of glory
and prosperity for **Kashmir**. He rebuilt a lot of temples and appointed
scholars to re-write Hindu scriptures and texts. A lot of Sanskrit texts
were translated to Persian and vice-versa. Peace and great scholars returned
to **Kashmir**. Ancient rituals and the customs of the **land** of **Kashmir
** were revived. Islam and Hinduism lived in harmony alongside. In terms of
Zain-ul-abidin's achievements his reign can be compared to the reign of the
greatest ruler of **Kashmir**, Lalit-Aditya-Muktapida. His reign lasted
fifty-two years. With the sad demise of the great leader of men and the
torchbearer of secularism, forces of fanaticism came to the fore again."*



Obviously "my change of heart about Zainul-abidin" did not happen at
the prodding of my dear friend.To make everyone believe that I am an
unreasonable bigot or someone who paints all the Muslims with the same
brush doesn't seem to have succeeded for I admire Zainul –abidin and
as be clearly seen I have compared his reign with the greatest kings
of Kashmir.Also please mark my choice of words to describe the great
monarch.This is despite the fact that Zainal-abidin did not abolish
Jaziya but only lessened it.

The very imposition of Jazziya itself is a mark of sickness
irrespective of which religion,creed or caste imposes it.It is not
just the monetary taxation but the social stigma associated with being
a non-muslim in a Muslim State much like being a Shudra in a caste
ridden  society.It was eventually Akbar who abolished Jazziya for
Pandits only to be re-imposed by his grandson Aurangzeb.That is a
different story for another time.



-- 
Rashneek Kher
http://www.nietzschereborn.blogspot.com