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

[Pawan Durani]

I must compliment Rashneek for the great work . The Interpretations given by
Shuddha stand corrected.

This is perhaps the best and the most extensive work I have come across in
SARAI , and SARAI should be congratulated to have made this platform
available to Rashneek to correct the myth which was otherwise created.

Wel done Rashneek.


On 12/26/07, rashneek kher <rashneek at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *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.Inhim
> 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.Whileplays,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.Hedoes
> 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
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20071226/1bb8ef32/attachment-0001.html