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

[rashneek kher]

*Part-IV*

*Shudda's Rajatarngani*

Let us now move to the third part of Shudda's observations where he has
written in detail about the kings who burnt temples,destroyed Viharas etc
etc.Although I have read both R.S.Pandit's translation of Rajatarangni as
well as Aurel Stein's translation( complete with notes and his travels to
many places mentioned by Kalhan)the notes that I had made on both (as a
Class XI student,I and my father traveled to a lot of places which Kalhana
mentions in Rajatarngni) were burnt when my house was razed to ground by
terrorists(sorry divinely ordained dervishes and missionaries) on the Janam
Asthami of 1990.I will refer to Aurel Stein's translation and footnotes
since in my opinion he presents a more detailed account of Kalhana's Kashmir.
Another reason for me to refer to his translation and footnotes is that R S
Pandit was no historian of any repute, whatsoever, while Aurel Stein's
extensive work leaves little to imagination. Thus wherever he could he has
closed loops so that half-baked historians don't go on an imagination hunt
and derive their own meanings.

(I apologize for not being in a position to use diacritical marks.)

Let us look at each king mentioned by Shudda

1.*Jalauka:*This King finds mention in Taranga 1,verses 108-152.,Vol 1,page
26.Aurel Stein's translation.

While it is true that he did destroy one Vihara(and not many Buddhist
Shrines as Shudda imagines and later tells us) the reason for the same as
mentioned in Rajatatarangni is that he was disturbed while sleeping because
of the music emanating from the said Vihara.It clearly is no religious zeal
that drove him to do this act.

This can be easily understood the following(Tarnaga 1,140-144)page 26 Book
1,Volume 1, Aurel Stein's Translation:

"When you had lately been kept from sleep by the noise of the music of the
Vihara,you had at the instigation of wicked persons caused in your anger the
destruction of the Vihara.The excited Bauddhas thought of me and sent me
forth to kill you.But then the Boddhisattvas called me and gave me the
following directions:'That great king is a Sakya(Mahasakya).You cannot hurt
him;but in his presence,O good one,you will obtain liberation from
darkness(sin).In our name you shall exhort him who has been ed into guilt by
wicked people,to give up his hoarded gold and to build a Vihara.If he does
so,no misfortune shall befall him in consequence of the destruction of the
Vihara,and atonement shall thus be made for him and his instigators."

The king repents for the sin he committed in a fit of anger and later builds
the Vihara and names it after the divine sorceress.The same can be easily
verified by the following Taranga 1,147,page 26,Vol 1 of Aurel Stein's
translation

"Thereupon the king built the Krtyasarama Vihara,and worshipped there the
divine sorceress who had been freed from darkness"

So Shudda's assertion that"Jalauka's destruction of Buddhist shrines" is but
an incorrect statement.There is only one Vihara in question and not many
shrines.Probably in order to prove his point my friend is very liberal in
the use of alphabet (s).One may also be tempted to ask if Jalauka was
himself a Buddhist,he being the son of Ashoka.

Notwithstanding his religious leanings we learn from Rajatarangi that he did
destroy 1(one) Vihara for which he later repented by building a Vihara.

Now here I ask Shudda to name one Muslim ruler in Kashmir who repented for
his acts of Iconoclasm and re-build temples.

2.*Abhimanyu-1.*This king finds mention in Taranga 1,verses 174-184,Vol1
page 31-33,Aurel Stein translation.

We straight away go to the verses which Shudda mentions as his proof of
Iconoclasm and religious persecution by Abhimanyu 1.These are 177-181.

I don't even deem it worth discussing what can be best be defined as
Shudda's figament of imagination.Yet for purpose of clarity I discuss
it.Theimportant verse is verse 181 of Taranga 1,page 33,Vol1 of
Stein's
translation.This is how it reads

"At that time there manifested itself some miraculous power through which
the Brahmans,who offered oblations and sacrifices,escaped destruction while
the Bauddhas perished"

>From this verse our friend presumes that Brahmans killed or persecuted
Buddhists.He supports this what R.S.Pandit in his footnote to the verses
180-181 says"this (snow that killed the Buddhists) is PERHAPS a poetic
description of the persecution of Buddhists during this era."

One is tempted to ask what is the source on the basis of which
R.S.Panditpresumes his PERHAPS.
R.S.Pandit being a person of shallow knowledge of history can be pardoned
for his ignorance but when someone like our own Shudda (who I greatly regard
for his scholarship) uses this as an example of Iconoclasm or Persecution,it
is but sad.We could have agreed with RS Pandit,if anything in the
Rajatarangi had mentioned Abhimanyu 1, as an unjust ,licentious,communal or
ill mannered moanarch.But that is not the case.

Not only this,while Aurel Stein makes a detailed foot note of the verse
180,he doesn't even bother to write a word about 181 since to any
intelligent reader it is more than self explanatory.

3.*Nara**:This king finds mention in Taranaga 1,verses 197-275,Vol 1,page
34-41 of Aurel Stein's translation.*

Shudda's explanation of the verses 199-200 of Taranaga 1,are more or less
correct.While Stein mentions the woman in question as the king's wife
R.S.Pandit mentions her as king's lover.Whichever be the case the Buddhist
monk does seduce the king's wife through magical powers.

Enraged by this the king does destroy thousands of Viharas.The reason for
destruction of Viharas is clear and needs no explanation.Though an
unpardonable sin,clearly religious zeal or conversion or selective
persecution is certainly not mentioned.

4.*Mihirkula:This king finds mention in Taranga 1,verses 289-324,page
43-48,Vol1,Aurel Stein's translation.*

Shudda writes"Here we enter the terrain of strictly historical account of
iconoclasm in Kashmir"

He refers to verses 289-293 of Taranga 1.Now let see what is said in them

I re-write Stein's translation for the benefit of the readers and for an
easy explanation later.

289-293"Then his son Mihirkula,a man of violent acts and resembling
Kala(Death),ruled in the land which was overrun by hordes of Mlecchas.In him
the northern region brought forth ,as it were,another god of death,bent in
rivalry to surpass the southern region which has the Yama(as its
guardian).The people knew his approach by noticing the vultures,crows and
other birds which were flying ahead eager to feed on those who were being
slain within his armies' reach.This royal Vitala was day and night
surrounded by thousands of murdered human beings,even in his
pleasure-houses.This terrible enemy of mankind had no pity for children,no
compassion for women,no respect for the aged."

>From the above I could not find out anything that would indicate to me that
he killed Buddhists alone or burnt their Viharas only and not Hindu
Temples.If anyone else can,I would be more than willing to be
corrected.However as Shudda mentions that R.S.Pandit in his foot note
says"Huns carried out terrible persecution of Buddhism,destroying Stupas and
Viharas and massacring the monks.Although the Huns were hostile to
Buddhism,they protected Saivism and their kings built temples in honour of
Shiva"

*I started looking at the other verses that Kalhana writes for this cruel
king.Surprisingly the word Buddhist or Vihara or Stupa simply does not find
a mention in the verses which have described Mihirkula's despotic
regime.Sothe question of him destroying them simply does not arise
unless in
someone's imagination.It is possible that other Huna rulers might have done
what RS Pandit writes as his footnote.Even that seems improbable,because if
any such references would have been there Shudda would have found them. *

As far as building temples Kalahana says in Verse 306,Taranga 1 Vol1,page 46
the following"Thus,evil-minded as he was,he founded at Srinagari the (shrine
of Shiva) Mihireshwara,and in Holada the large town called Mihirpura"

*I hope building a Shiva temple is no proof of Iconoclasm.*

As for giving Agraharas,Shudda himself acknowledges that he gave it to
Brahmanas born in the Gandhara country at Vijayeshwara.What is notable is
the scorn that Kalhana heaps on these foreign Brahmanas for accepting
Agraharas from this wretched king.This is how Stein translates this verse.

Ref verse 307,Taranga 1,Vol1,page 46,

Brahmanas from Gandhara,resembling himself in their habits and verily
themselves the lowest of the twice-born,accepted Agraharas from him"

*So Shudda's assertion"Here we enter the terrain of strictly historical
account of iconoclasm in **Kashmir**" falls flat for want of credible
historical proof.*

5.*Jayapida:This king finds mention in Taranga 4,Verses 402-659,page
158-180,Vol 1,Aurel Stein's translation.*

This is one king who Kashmiri Pandits need no mention of.Almost all of us in
our hour of vanity refer to the miraculous powers of our forefathers the
curse of who led to Jayapida's painful end.We often take re-course to our
past and foolishly so.

What Shudda has observed with respect to Jayapida is true and just goes on
to prove my point that the reasons for Icocnoclasm or persecution by
non-muslim kings of Kashmir could have been anything but religious expansion
or promotion of their own faith.That greed was the motive for his
persecution of his subjects can be easily testified by this verse

Ref  verse 628,Taranaga 4,page 177,Vol1,Stein's Translation

"In his persistent greed he went so far in cruelty,that for three years he
took the (whole) harvest,including the cultivator's share"

6.Ksemagupta:This king finds mention in Taranga 6,verses 150 to187,page 247
to 250,Vol 1,Aurel Stein's translation.

Shudda refers to Ksemagupta's iconoclasm by his act of burning down of holy
Jayendra Vihara and subsequent errection of temples.Let us ourselves read
what Kalhana says about this incident

Ref:171-173 verses,Taranga 6,page 248,Vol1,Stein's translation.

"In order to kill the Damara Samgrama,who when attacked by the assassins,had
enetered the famous Jayendravihara,he(Ksemagupta) had the latter burnt down
without mercy.Taking from this Vihara,which was entirely burned down,the
brass of the image of Sugata(Buddha), and collecting a mass of stones from
decaying temples,he erected the (temple of Siva) Ksemagaurisvara in a market
street of the city,thinking foolishly that the foundation of the shrine
would perpetuate his fame"

Now,the motive for burning the Vihara is known to us as is the foolish
reason for erecting a temple.The king proves himself to be a wicked soul but
to attribute the reasons of religious bigotry for the destruction would be
taking the argument too far. The argument that he used material from the
Vihara to build the temple is fallacious because Stein's translation itself
is clear when it reads"and collecting a mass of stones from decaying
temples"Even the Sanskrit verse reads"Devagrah" which means
temple.Kalhanauses the word "Chaityas or Viharas" to describe Buddhist
places of worship
,although a Chaitya is the place of worship while a Vihara is a monastry in
which Chaityas were generally situated.

7. *Harsha:This king finds mention in Taranga 7 and Kalahana has written
extensively on this king.Ref Taranga 7,verses 829 to 1732.page 333 to 402 of
Volume 1,Aurel Stein's translation.*

We have already looked at the views of various historians and analysed their
writings with respect to Harsha"the Iconoclast"However the discussion would
be incomplete unless we refer to what Kalhana writes about this wretched
king.We will also see the impact of the word "Turuska" which has baffled
historians.

There can be no difference of opinion as far as his title of Iconoclast
goes.

Let us try and understand the reasons for his Iconoclasm based on Kalhanas
description.This is what Aurel Stein writes in "Harsha's temple
de-spoliation"

Ref Introduction Chap 5,sec 5,page 113,Volume 1 of Aurel Stein's
translation.

"Extravagant expenditure on the troops and senseless indulgence in costly
pleasures involved Harsa in grave financial troubles.From these he
endeavoured to free himself by ruthless spoliation of sacred
shrines.Kalhanarelates with some humour how the incidental discovery
of the treasures
hoarded at the temple of King Bhima Sahi had turned the king's attention to
this method of replenishing his ex-chequer.After the temple treasuries had
been ransacked,Harsa proceeded to the still more revolutionary measure of
confiscating divine images in order to possess himself of the valuable metal
of which they were made.Kalhana records the strange fact that as a
preliminary step the sacred images were systematically defiled through
outcast mendicants.As Kalhana is particular to specify the few metal statues
of gods throughout Kashmir which escaped Harsha's clutches,we cannot doubt
the extent of Harsha's iconoclasm.*Can the latter have been instigated or
encouraged somehow by the steady advance of Muhammadanism in the
neighbouring terrorities?Kalahana,when relating these shameful
confiscations,gives to Harsha the epithet"Turuska",ie Muhammadean,and later
on makes a reference to Turuska captains being employed in his army and
enjoying his favour."*

>From the above it almost seems clear that Harsa was greatly influenced by
Muhammedeans and is likely to have committed these acts of Iconoclasm under
their influence if not at their behest.From the way he went on to destroy
and defile almost all icons, without bias either in favour of Hindus or
Buddhists draws a parallel to Muslim rulers who did the same.Harsa made no
difference when it came to defiling Buddhist and Hindu images makes us
believe that he was purely an iconoclast and the philosophy of Iconoclasm
where every image deserves to be destroyed is a concept rooted in one
Semitic religion alone.

Let us also look at the word Turuska and its connotations with regard to
Kalhana's Rajatarngni.In all there are 19 references to the word Turuska in
Rajatarangni.There is one reference to Yavan in Rajatarangni.There are 14
references to the word Mlecchas in Rajatarngni.

I agree with Shudda that words like Yavan,Turuska and Mleccha were used
interchangeably to describe foreigners/outsiders/Muslims by
Kalhana.ThatKalhana uses the word "Turuska" to describe kings like
Husha,Jushka and
Kanishka cannot be refuted.We however need to study the word "Turuska" in
the context of how Kalhana uses it for Harsa.We also need to see how Stein
understands this word.For the benefit of the readers I give below all the
references to the word in Rajatarangni.

Refer:Index Vol 2 page no 546 of Aurel Stein's translation.

Turks,their habits iv .179;kings Huska,Juska,Kanishka called Turuskas
I,170,viii 3412;enemies of Lalliya Sahi v 152;soldiers of Hammira(Mahumud),
vii 51,56,70,118;sell slave girls,520;mercenaries supported by
Harsa,1149;Harsa fears attack from Turuskas,1159;Muhammadean allies of
Bhiksacrara,viii 885,886,919,923;northern allies of Dards,2843;invaders of
the Punjab,3346;artist from Turuska Country vii.528;Harsa called Turuska
i.e.Muhammadean,1095.

We need to look at the Turuska reference with regard to Harsa to understand
whether it was "Mohammadean" that Kalhana meant by Turushka.As far as Stein
is concerned he seems to be in no doubt whatsoever.This can be safely
understood by the last of the references given above and given again for
easy reference.( Harsa called Turuska i.e.Muhammadean,1095,vii).

As for other references except for one where Kalhana uses Turuska to
describe Huska,Juska and Kanishaka all other references clearly point out
that Kalhana uses Turuska as a synonym of Mohammedean..

Still let us look at some specific references

Invaders of Panjab,viii,3346,page 261,Vol 2,Aurel Stein's
translation……Prince Sangiya,the younger brother of Kamaliya,consecrated (a
linga) under his own name.He was born from a race of Ksattriyas,who owing to
their native place being within the territory of the Turuskas had learned
nothing but cruelty……

Here Stein in his footnote writes..K refers to the condition of the Panjab
after the Muhammadean conquest.

Soldiers of Hammira(Mahmud),vii 51,56,70,118, Vol 1,pages 270-276,Aurel
Stein's translation

These verses make for an interesting reading because they describe the
Muhhamdean conflict with the Hindu-Shahi dynasty.In this rather detailed
footnotes of the verses 47-69 Stein writes"There is no doubt that Kalhana's
narrative ,vii 47-69,relates to one of the campaigns which Mahmud of Ghazna
directed against Trilochanpala and his allies.The identity of our account
with Mahmud has been recognized by REINAUD,lc.Already before him Thomas(
J.R.A.S,ix p.190sq)had shown the derivation of this term from the Arabic
tittle Amiru-l-mumenin,and its application on coins and elsewhere to
Ghaznavid  Sultan.Reinaud has also rightly pointed out that the expression
Turuska used for Trilochanpala's opponents ,vii 51,56, is particularly
appropriate for Mahmud's army,which chiefly consisted of soldiers of Turkish
origin."

Documentary evidence heavily supports the fact that Harsa was greatly under
the influence of his employed Muslim commanders.From the available
references it can also be safely understood that in the context of Harsha
Kalhana uses the word Turuska to refer to Muslims alone.

>From the above one can conclude that though Harsa's iconoclasm had its
origins in greed and later in enjoyment of heresy and corruption resulting
from power the effect of his Muslim friends can simply not be ruled
out.Inmy opinion he was the first of the kings who started the process
which was
to be later followed by other"Turuska" kings.

As is said "Coming events cast their shadows before'The catastrophe that was
to hit Kashmiris later had its shadow in Harsha"the turuska".

*Sankarvarman:This king finds mention in the Taranga 5 verses 128-227 page
202-216,Volume 1,Aurel Stein's translation.*

I wrote in my posting to Shudda"Nowhere has Kalhana mentioned Shankarvarman
destroying Viharas"

Shudda gives us this verse from Taranga 5 as a proof of Sankaravarman's
destruction of Buddhist Viharas.Let us read the verse no 161 of taranga
5.R.S.Pandit's translation pg 207.

"Thus the ruler,who possessed but little character,had whatever was of value
at Parihaspura,carried off in order to raise the fame of his own city"

Aurel Stein's translation of this verse reads like a copy of Pandit's
translation.Let us read that too.page 207,Vol1,Aurel Stein's translation.

"Thus this ruler,who possessed but little character,had whatever was of
value at Parihaspura,carried off in order to raise the fame of his city"

Two inferences can be drawn after reading the above verse.

1.Kalhana considers the king as bereft of any character.

2.He took away things from Parihaspura to raise the fame of his city.

In order to understand whether this was an act of destroying Viharas
alone,we need to know which buildings existed at Parihaspura in the first
place.Was Parihaspura a city of Buddhist Viharas alone? Was Parihaspura a
city where Buddhist Viharas outnumbered Hindu temples?Did Shankaravarman
destroy Parihaspura?Are there any direct/indirect references in the verse
mentioned above which would indicate Shankarvarman destroying Viharas?

All these questions need to be answered before finding out whether
Sankarvarman destroyed any Viharas at all or if he did so how many to be
precise and which ones.So let us go back to Rajatarangi and read Taranaga
4,verses 194-209,Vol 1 page142-143 of Aurel Stein's translation.

Parihaspura drew its name from Parihaskesava(Lord Vishnu) the image of who
was the first installation at Parihaspura.If one reads through all the
verses that I have referred to above it would not be hard to know that
except for two images of Buddha(including the famous Brhdbuddha image) all
other installations were those of Hindu gods and goddesses mainly Vishnu. So
Shudda's derivation (from verse 161 of Taranga 5)that stealing of material
of any worth from Parihaspura is equal to destruction of Viharas holds no
water.If at all he did destroy Parihaspura,Kalhana would have mentioned this
in great detail for Parihaspura was no pushover as a city.It was built by
the tallest Kashmiri King ever.Kalhana himself describes it as town" that
mocked the residence of Indra" .How could a historian of Kalhanas repute
have erred in mentioning its destruction at the hands of Shankarvarman and
forgiven Samkaravarman for destruction of a city like Parihaspura. Shudda's
attempts to communalize Samkarvarman don't seem to work.Let us also note
that Kalhana says "Sankarvarman took away anything of value"No way does he
write or even gives an indication that Sankarvarman destroyed the city,leave
alone Viharas.

I request my friend Shudda to come up with more plausible explanations than
the one he has given.It is good to read between lines.That is how history
should be read but imagining is different from reading between the lines.

Let us look at the other verses that Shudda has mentioned about
Sankarvarman.

I am in total agreement with Shudda that Sankarvarman destroyed temples and
like Harsha ,he too had officers who supervised the same.I had in no case
argued that Sankarvarman was a just king who did not persecute his subjects
neither had I argued that he did not destroy temples.All I had said was
Kalhana nowhere mentions that Sankarvarman destroyed Viharas the credible
evidence for which, I have already given.That he destroyed temples and
collected share of profits from them proves that Sankarvarman was a wicked
and a greedy king but that he destroyed Viharas is simply preposterous.

No direct or indirect reference is given either by Kalhana or later by Stein
which would indicate that he selectively persecuted Buddhists or other sects
who were social outcasts.

Let us now look at Agam-adambara which Shudda presents as a proof of his
argument that non-vedic people were prosecuted by Shankarvarman.I salute
this great master of history who outrightly rejects Jonaraja,Shuka,Srivara
and Prajabhatta as not being credible historians yet he presents a poet as a
source of history.It just goes on to show what ridiculous lengths some of us
can sometimes go to prove our point.Agam-adambara is a play and hence not in
any way a source of credible historical evidence.While plays,stories,poetry
written in a certain era do indicate the social,cultural and other facets of
that era we cannot use them as credible historical evidences.We cannot use "
Haroun and the Sea of Stories" a thousand years from now as a historical
source to understand a particular event of history.In the same manner
Agamadambara may provide us an outline of the time of Sankarvarman,but to
use it as a source of history would only be a mistake.

But since Shudda has read it and wanted to quote from it as a proof of his
hard work and knowledge of Sanskrit we may as well look at this
also.Ipresent an essay written by
Dr.Ved Kumari Ghai,who is considered an authority on Kashmir's Sanskrit
Literature has written an essay on "Agamadmabara" in her book titled"Kashmir
ka Sanskrit Sahitya ko Yogdhaan"published by J&K Academy of Art,Culture and
Languages,Jammu

ref page no 30-35

She refers to the third act of the play.This is what she says" p 32

"Teesre Ank main Tantrik Shaiv Sadhak Kankalaketu tatha Shamshanabhuti
bhaybheet hain ki Shankarvarman aur uska mantra Jayant,aadveik matavlambiyon
ko desh se bahar nikalne par tule hain.Unki yojna yeh hai ki Yogeshwari
Kalangi Shika ke madhyam se Maharani Sughanda par prabhav daalkar iss
nishkasan ko rukvaya jayen.Tabhi dondi sunayee padti hai ki Sankarshana aur
Maharaj Sankarvarman kee Aagya anusaar jagat pravah se chale aa rahe nana
agam anuyayi apne apni kriyaen karte huyean rajya main rahe parantu prastut
dharmo main vighan daalne wale tap se vimukh papi logon ko raja sankarvarman
samapt kar denge.Bahut se sadhu dar kar rajya se bhagne lagte
hain.Sankarshan svyam shaiva ashram me jaa kar shaivmata anuyyayeon ki
branti door karta hai tatha rajya se bhagte huve logon ko lautane ko vyakti
bhejta hai"

The above very clearly shows how the kings representative himself stops
mendicants belonging in my opinion to Laukilisa or Pashupat Cult , from
leaving the country.

In the fourth act of the play kings wife Sughanda calls for a congregation
of saints of various schools of philosophy and to our surprise even Carvakas
join the assembly.In the end of the discussions the chairman Bhatt Sahat
concludes by saying the following,in the words of Ved Kumai "Jaise kisi
nagar ya mahal main pravesh karne ke ichuk alag alag dwaron se pravesh kar
sakte hain usee prakar moksh ke ichhuk sadhak bhi moksh ki praapti ki liye
alag alag marg apna sakte hain"ref p 34,

Now my dear friend where is the question of selective persecution.

Although I have put forth my comments on Adam-agambara I still don't
consider this as a historical source though it can be a reflection of the
times of Shankarvarman.Poets/playwrights have poetic license and use it
liberally.They use Alamkaras and Atishouktis to add spice to their
works.Soto use or even suggest using them to verify a certain
historical event is
committing historical hara-kiri.

Here I suggest not admonish Shudda to read Nilamatapurana now that he has
already taken a plunge himslef.It is incidentally translated by Ved Kumari
only.

*Anangpala:Taranga 7,verse 147;*This bugger was not a Kashmiri , nor a king
or a king who ruled Kashmir. That he was related to King Ananata was his
only connection to Kashmir.It is like a nephew of Rahul Gandhi coming from
Italy and then doing something which is out of sync with our culture.Can I
take this an example of Rahul Gandhi being a non-conformist or less-Indian
or something of that sort. Giving examples of Prince of Kabul for proving
Hindu Iconoclasm in Kashmir shows that Shudda had to work really hard to
find examples to justify his argument.

Summary:Kalhana records Kashmir's history for a total of 3339
years.Thereare 147 kings who find mention in
Rajatarangni.Out of these our learned friend (after a lot of hard work and
digging,even muck raking)could find only seven kings (as per his analysis)
who he believes to have committed acts of Iconoclasm and persecution.He does
not go into the motives for the same except in case of Harsha where he
defends his citadel that Harsha wasn't really so-much under Islamic
influence to have committed acts of iconoclasm against Hindu and Buddhist
icons as Muslim rulers later did.

Let us assume(playing Shudda's advocate) all seven of the kings including
Anangpala(an Afghan prince) did commit acts of iconoclasm wouldn't it be
more of an exception/aberration rather than a rule.Although I have
conclusively proved on the basis of written evidence that not more than 4
kings in an entire span of  3339 years have resorted to such acts.This is
not to say that Hindu kings were any better than Muslim kings in terms of
governance/administration ,justice delivery system or persecution of their
subjects.Not even one Pre-Islamic king has been found to have resorted to
selective persecution on the basis of faith.

Now compare this with the kings in the Islamic period of approximately 450
years one can count on ones fingers the kings (Zainul-abidin,Akbar,Hassan
Shah,Jehangir,Shah-Jehan)who did not resort to large scale persecution on
the basis of religion & iconoclasm.That Shia's or Sunnies also subjugated
each other is but a proof of religious intolerance within  Islam's different
sub-sects.A detailed account of the same has already been provided in the
earlier chapter titled"Motives Behind Iconoclasm-The Muslim Kings".More
evidence shall be shared in the next chapter where we will discuss Jia Lal
Kilam and how Shudda uses his book.


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