[Reader-list] Annotations to the History of Iconoclasm in Kashmir - I

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear all,

Happy Deepavali to you all.

I hope that this Deepavali brings more illumination and less noise into
the discussions that we share on this list. Traditionally, Deepavali is
an occasion for the balancing of books, the sqaring of debts and the
settling of accounts. I thought I would take this opportunity to square
a debt that I owe the list. Some time ago, while packing my bags for a
trip to Istanbul, I had ventured a promise that I would come back to you
all with notes of my reading of Kalhana's Rajtarangini, partly as a
contributon to the off/on debate on Kashmir and its history that has
haunted this list for some time. I would like to redeem that promise
today so as to balance my books. I pray your indulgence.

I am writing on this list after a period of silence out of respect for
the desire expressed by the list administrator that those who have
spoken a great deal (including me) on the list in the last two months on
issues particularly referring to Kashmir, refrain from doing so for a
cooling off period . I would have posted this some weeks ago, in the
midst of some intensive travelling, but refrained from doing so, as I
did not wish to disrespect the import of the list administrator's
suggestion, and wanted to use the time to think through some issues in a
careful manner. However, I do think that not posting this material would
also be damaging, in my view, to the discursive integrity of this list.
Hence this set of postings.


regards

Shuddha

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNOTATIONS TO THE PRLIMINARY HISTORY OF ICONOCLASM IN KASHMIR - I

Prelogomena

Disclaimer and Apologies:
Apologies in advance (once again) for yet another lengthy text (divided 
into 4 postings) and for its dry, scholastic, even pedantic nature. This 
text is written so as to set a record straight, and to consider the 
merit in charges that were made on this list of inaccurate reading and 
citation. Consequently, I have to go in some detail into different kinds 
of textual material. Readers who do not have the interest or patience to 
follow me as I delve into this material will, I hope, either choose to 
refrain from reading this text in its entirety (it may not be of 
interest to many) or at least forgive the quantity of material that this 
posting has to contend with. The text is broken up into a set of four 
separate and successive postings so as to make for easier reading and in 
order to avoid a lengthy download process.

Recapitulation of an Exchange:
Around nine weeks ago, (on the 3rd and the 4th of September) an exchange
occured on this list between me and Rashneek Kher regarding iconoclasm,
religious persecution and the history of Kashmir. (see postings by me
and by Rashneek Kher on the 3.9.3007 and 4.9.2007 on the  Reader List
under the thread 'By R.J.Rummel'.This thread was initiated by Pawan
Durani, and has been responded to by many on this list)

Rashneek Kher, writing in the wake of Pawan Durani's response to me,
initially offered us a selective list of quotatiions from texts by
Muslim chroniclers of Kashmir, (primarily, but not only, the
'Baharistan-I-Shahi' translated by Dr. Kashi Nath Pandita - see -
<http://history.world-citizenship.org/baharistan-i-shahi/> ) testifying
to the policies of temple destruction, iconoclasm and religious
persecution carried out by three Muslim kings of early medieval Kashmir
- Sultan Shihab ud Din, Sultan Qutub ud Din, Sultan Sikandar also known
as 'but shikan' or Iconoclast, and the religious leader, Mir Syed Ali
Hamadani (whom Rashneek does not name explicitly in his initial posting
in the thread, but the quote he furnishes refers to him).

[See -
<http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2007-September/010122.html>
for Rashneek Kher's posting.]

This was done within the larger agenda of buttressing a series of
arguments made on the list that portrayed the Kashmiri Pandit community
as the 'victims' of specifically Muslim animosity down the ages. In
other words, the protagonists of this point of view were attempting to
prove that their rendition of the current state of the Kashmiri Pandit
community needs to be seen in continuity with what for them is a
virtually uninterrupted history of the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits
that began with the rise of Islam in Kashmir.

I wrote back, pointing out that iconoclasm, temple destruction and
religious persecution was by no means the monopoly of the Muslim kings
of Kashmir, and that there are numerous instances in the historic record
of temples and places of worship being destroyed and religious freedom
curtailed due to the policies of rulers of other faiths. I referred to
Rajiv Sapru and N N Dasgupta's comments on the history of Kashmir.
Separately, I had made some references to Kalhana's Rajtarangini (a
Sanskrit verse chronicle of the mythic, ancient and early medieval kings
of Kashmir) particularly with regard to pre-islamic iconoclasm in Kashmir.

[See -
<http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2007-September/010146.html>
for my reply.]

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.

The Figure of the Innocent Victim:
I did not think then, and do not now, that the figure of the 'innocent
victim' of history, when ascribed to any community, whosoever they may
be, has any value in a serious discussion. And in any case, recounting
what may or may not have been done by a king eight hundred years ago
cannot be used as a justification for an agenda of generating fear and
hatred today. The history of Kashmir, especially, in my view,
demonstrates that no community can claim for itself a monopoly of
victimhood and innocence. The ordinary people of every community in
Kashmir have suffered, and those from within each community who have had
access to power have also had blood on their hands. Privileging the
suffering, or historical experience of any one community over that of
others (while neglecting to discuss the destiny of Kashmiri people as a
whole) amounts, in my view, to the unleashing of an epistemic violence
that perpetuates patterns of arrogance and impunity, leading to the
continuation of the spiral of violence.

The Admonitions of Rashneek Kher:
Rashneek Kher then responded to my argument by saying that my reading of
Kalhana was flawed, and that people like Rajiv Sapru, whom I had cited,
had not based their statements on any textual evidence in Kalhana's
Rajtarangini.

See -
<http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2007-September/010146.html>
  for Rashneek's response to my reply.

The purport of his posting was that that I was indulging in
dissimulation. Rashneek Kher said -  "...Please read Kalhana's
Rajatarangni (Book V-128 to 227) and you will know that Kalhana has no
where mentioned that Sankarvarman destroyed Parihaspura. Quoting
Mr.Sapru as a source is like qouting me on some Molecular Biology topic
of which I can be at best be a student. Learn to qoute from sources
which are considered authentic and credible,not mamus,chachus and tayas
(sic - maternal uncles, younger paternal uncles and elder paternal uncles)."

I was further admonished and instructed by Rashneek Kher to read books
like Pandit Jia Lal Kilam's 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits' and
Advaitavadini Kaul's 'The Buddhist Savants of Kashmir' to correct my
flawed understanding of the relationship between people of different
faiths in Kashmir and to learn the 'true' history of Kashmir.

Sources for the Present Posting: Kalhana's Rajtarangini
In the past nine weeks, I have been doing precisely that. I have
(re)read, not 'mamus, chachus and tayas', as Kher would have it, but the
two currently available English translations of Kalhana's Rajtarangini
(by Sir M. Aurel Stein, in three volumes, as well as the single volume
translation by R. S. Pandit).

The 3 volume Aurel Stein translation (containing the original Sanskrit
text and critical commentary) is published by Gulshan Books, Srinagar,
2007. This edition is a facsimile of the first edition of the book,
which was produced under the aegis of the Maharaja and State Council of
Jammu and Kashmir in Srinagar in 1900

The R.S.Pandit translation (with a foreword by Jawaharlal Nehru) is
published by the Sahitya Akademi,  Delhi (2006 and  several earlier
editions )

There is another English translation, by a Jogesh Chander Dutt, which
was published in Calcutta, (1879-1887) and is hard to find. I had read
it years ago, but I do not want to rely on my memory of that reading.
Dutt, also translated Jonaraja's Rajtarangini, as well as the lesser
histories of Srivara and Shuka and these texts are currently more
readily available. I have consulted the J.C. Dutt translation of
Kalhana, but do not refer to it in this posting as it is not entirely
relevant to the issues raised by Rashneek Kher. The Aurel Stein version
is a significantly more complete than Dutt's translation of Kalhana and
contains a detailed critical apparatus and notes. R S Pandit's version
is more compact, though it follows the Aurel Stein edition closely, but
also restores in translation some verses that were ommitted by Stein.
Reading Stein and Pandit together with the Sanskrit original gives us
the most comprehensive picture of Kalhana's Rajtarangini that is
possible to obtain under present circumstances. This is what I have
attempted to do here.

I have also read, as per Kher's suggestion, Advaitavadini Kaul's
'Buddhist Savants of Kashmir: Their Contributions in Foreign Lands' and
Pandit Jia Lal Kalam's 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits' (edited by
Advaitavadini Kaul) both published by Utpal Publications, Delhi.

In addition, I have read a few other texts, including portions of a
Sanskrit Play by Jayanta Bhatta (a luminary of the court of King
Sankaravarman) called 'Agambadambara' which has some interesting details
of Sankaravarman's reign, and a host of other secondary material, the
details of which I do not intend to go into now, because, it will get
way too lengthy, and because, in disputes such as this it is perhaps
best to stick to primary sources, so as to avoid accusations of
interpretative bias.

I mention all of these sources, not to demonstrate erudition, but to
point to what is easily available, so that if necessary, anyone can
cross check my readings of these texts with their own. Any reasonably
good library or bookshop (including several in Delhi, for those who
happen to be in Delhi) carry copies of both Aurel Stein as well as R.S.
Pandit's translations of Kalhana's Rajtarangini in their holdings. These
texts are not difficult to find.

Jonaraja, Srivara, Prajabhatta and Shuka - the successors of Kalhana
Rashneek Kher, in passing, said that "Of course it would be ideal that
you read Jonaraja,Srivara,Prajabhatta and Shuka to know the truth for
yourself but since you may have aversion to Brahman scholarship
Baharistan-i-Shahi and Tarikh-i-Hassan Khuihami might be the right ones
for you."

Unfortunately for Rashneek, I have to admit that once again, I am
reasonably familiar with whatever is available of Jonaraja, Srivara,
Prajabhatta and Shuka. I am speaking here of  'Medieval Kashmir' by
Jogesh Chandra Dutt, (consisting of translations of Jonaraja's 'Dwitiya
Rajtarangini', Shrivara's 'Kaina Rajtarangini' and Shuka's
'Rajtarangini') edited and with notes by S.L. Sadhu, Atlantic
Publishers, New Delhi, 1993 as well as Shrikanth Kaul's  and Kashi Nath
Dhar's separate editions of Srivara's crhonicle.

My careful assessment of the textual sources mentioned here by Rashneek
Kher suggests that the value of the accounts attributed to Jonaraja,
Srivara, Prajabhatta and Shuka is not very high. My 'aversions' if any,
have nothing to do with the 'Brahmin' identity of these chroniclers.
Rather, they have to do with considerations of textual integrity and
historiographic discernment.

Let me here offer some citations in support of this opinion. Walter
Slaje, an Austria-German Indologist with a special interest in the
history of mediveal Kashmir, writes about the reasons for suspecting
later interpolation in the so-called 'Dvitiya Rajatarangini' attributed
to Jonaraja.

"Of the Kashmiri Sanskrit chroniclers, four are available in published
form at present: Kalhana, Jonaraja, Srivara, and Suka. With the
exception of Kalhana, the received texts each display a peculiar
feature. In the case of Jonaraja (A.D. 1459), one recension in the
textual transmission of his work incorporates historical accounts of a
considerably later period ("Pseudo-Jonaraja"), in some 350 verses,
interpolated in the second half of the sixteenth century.  As regards
Suka, he starts his own account with Prajyabhatta's (now lost) chronicle
(A.D. 1486-1513), consulted and adapted by him for the purpose of
continuing the preceding chronicles."

Srivara's so called 'Jaina Rajatarangini' has had several translations
and editions since the ninenteenth century, (Calcutta, Bombay,
Hoshiarpur and Varanasi) and the latest, by Kashi Nath Dhar (which
collates material from previous editions and translations by is
published in 1994 by the Indian Council for Historical Research and
Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi

Slaje, commenting once again on this multiplicity of editions of the
text attributed to Srivara says - "Unfortunately, it is clear that such
editorial zeal, which found expression in a remarkable number of
editions, is in inverse proportion to the standards of the textual
criticism applied to them. By this uncritical attitude of the editors
essential facts relating to the genesis and character of Srivara's
Rajatarangini have been concealed." (ibid)

[See - 'A note on the genesis and character of Srivara's so-called
"Jaina-Rajatarangini" '.
by Walter Slaje, published in The Journal of the American Oriental
Society, July-Sept , 2005. See also -  'Medieval Kashmir and the Science
of History' by Walter Slaje, Madden Lecture, 2003-4, University of
Texas, Austin ]

Slaje is not alone in his disparaging of the editorial-critical
integrity of the textual material of the 'later' Rajataranginis.

S.C. Banerji, a scholar of Sanskrit who has worked on Kashmiri Sanskrit
chroniclers says -

"That the Rajtarangini has nothing comparable to itself is evident from,
among other minor works, the three Kashmirian continuations of it. The
first of these is the 'Dvitiya Raj Tarangini' of Jonaraja. Planned to
bring the history down to the time of the author's patron Sultan Zainul
Abdein (1417-1467 AD), it was left incomplete due to the death of
Jonaraja in 1459. The second, by Srivara, pupil of Jonaraja, is
entitled, Jaina Raj Tarangini and covers the period 1459-86. The last
one, called Ravalit Pataka by Prajya Bhatta and his pupil Suka, brings
the story to some years following the annexaction of Kashmir by Akbar
(1486 AD) these are poor successors of Kalhana's work. The period
covered by them is long indeed, but the total historical content of
these wrks taken together is about half of that fund in the Raja
Tarangini. These works needlessly devote space to descriptions of
unimporatnat incidents. For example, the first two works exaggerate the
virtues of the ruling Sultan while glossive nover his failings. Barring
Jonaraja's work these accounts betray their authors' in accurate
knowledge of the topography of Kashmir."

[ - Cultural Heritage of Kashmir: A Survey of Kashmir's Contribution to
Sanskrit Literature, by Sures Chandra Banerji (with a foreword by Dr.
R.C. Majumdar), Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, Calcutta , 1965 Chapter 5, page
53 ]

Sheldon Pollock, writing in an article aptrly titled 'The Death of
Sanskrit' concurs, Speaking of Kalhana;s successors, he says -

"Although like its  model this second Rajtarangini calls itself a
literary work ("a tree of poetry in  whose shade those travelers who are
kings can cool the heat of the prideful ways  of their forebears"), it
is a bland chronicle, and has nothing of the aesthetic objectives of its
prototype. Here for once the self-deprecation with which Sanskrit
literary works conventionally begin, from Kalidasa  and onward, finds
some purchase: "What have these two in common, this shallow well of my
literary talent and the wave-crested ocean of [Kalhana's] poem? . . . My
work can succeed only by attaching itself to Kalhana's text. If it flows
into a river even ditch water is eventually drunk." The other works
Jonariija has left behind- commentaries on courtly epics and a few
gnomic verses (niti) preserved in a  later anthology-serve only to
substantiate the grounds for his humility, and, again, to measure the
distance Sanskrit culture has traveled from its peak."

[See - The Death of Sanskrit by Sheldon Pollock, Comparative Studies in
Society and History, Vol. 43, Pages 392-426. ]

It is for this reason that historians and commentators rely so strongly
on Kalhana's Rajatarangini as the primary source material for
understanding the history of ancient and early medieval Kashmir, and on
chronicles such as the 'Baharistan-i-Shahi' for medieval Kashmir. Not
because they do not trust what 'Brahmin' chroniclers like Srivara, Suka,
Jonaraja and the like write, (in any case they only supplement Kalhana,
and primarily concern themselves with the reign of Kings who come after
Kalhana's chronicle ends). Generally, less weightage is given to the
credibility of these chronicles as compared to that of Kalhana because a
careful assessment of comparative textual integrity makes it possible
for us to discriminate between the high critical standards set by
Kalhana and their inadequate realization by his immediate successors,
namely, Jonaraja, Suka and Srivara.

It is indeed unfortunate that Rashneek Kher should either mistake or
knowingly confuses a reasoned discernment for secterian bias. Such
charges, especially when they are made loosely and without foundation do
not signify an intelligent or honest expression of a difference of
opinion. I will leave it to the readers to decide as to what they do
signify.

Iconoclasm:
It is no one's case, least of all mine, to state that iconoclasm by
Muslim Kings in the sultanate period in Kashmir did not occur. It did,
and my contention is that it is incorrect and biased to say that
iconoclasm occurred only at the behest of Muslim rulers in Kashmir. It
is also incorrect to say that such acts of iconoclasm were at all times,
and in each instance endorsed by all Muslims Pandit Jia Lal Kilam, a
scholar that Rashneek Kher himself approves of, categorically states,
"The persecution of the Hindus or more particularly of the Brahmans has
been borne as testimony by almost all of the Muslim historians. Hassan
and Fauq, two great Muslim historians, have condemned these excesses in
unscathing terms." ("A History of Kashmiri Pandits", Kilam, Chapter 3,
Page 34)

Muslim rulers in Kashmir destroyed temples, they also attacked Muslims
who differed from whichever Muslim dispensation happenned to be
different from their own. In doing so, they only showed how similar they
were to some of their non-Muslim predecessors. But these acts by Muslim
rulers were and have been criticized in 'unscathing terms' by Muslim
commentators. Some non Muslim historians of Kashmir (especially but not
only, Jonaraja, Shrivara, Prajyabhatta and Shuka, whom Rashneek cites
approvingly) were also abundant in their praise for the tolerance and
liberality of outlook of some Muslim rulers, just as they criticized
other Muslim rulers who happenned to be intolerant. In Kashmir, as
elsewhere in the Islamicate world, Shia Muslim rulers attacked Sunni
Muslims. Sunni Muslim rulers attacked Shias, and Muslim rulers (both
Shia and Sunni) protected and patronized people of all faiths, even
those of no particular faith.

Also, the historical record demonstrates that much before the advent of
Islam in Kashmir, several Shaivite rulers attacked Buddhists, and
destroyed Buddhist places of worship. To try and simplify this complex
record into a binary conflict between 'Muslims' and 'Hindus'  or others
in Kashmir, is to risk a great deal of vulgar dissimulation. In what
follows, I will attempt to show to what depths this vulgarity is
prepared to descend by a close reading of the available textual evidence.

I hope that the import of my intervention here (for reasons that are
abundantly clear) will also be read as a response to Pawan Durani's one
sentence posting on this list of the url of the online version of what
purports to be a 'history' of Kashmir by one Narendar Sehgal. (See -
'Converted Kashmir - Memorials of Mistakes' posted by Durani on the 16th
of October, 2007)

See -
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2007-October/010826.html
(for Pawan Durani's posting)

See - http://www.kashmir-information.com/ConvertedKashmir/index.html
(for the site referred to in this posting)

In a general sense, I hope that it will also be read as a unpicking of
the machine that produces, day after day, the monotonous litany of 'the
persecution of Hindus by Muslims in India/South Asia'. We have had to
contend with the outpourings of this machine on this list through
repeated postings by the Vedavati Jogi, We Wi and Dhatr1. A careful
reading of Kalhana is a very good antidote for all of these maladies, .
I highly recommend it.


(continued in next posting)