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

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

ANNOTATIONS TO THE PRLIMINARY HISTORY OF ICONOCLASM IN KASHMIR - IV

Pandit Jia Lal Kilam's 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits'
Even Pandit Jia Lal Kilam, who Rashneek Kher refers to approvingly, does
not offer a substantively different conclusion from what I am saying. I
offer below a set of 3 quotes from his book. (edited by Advaitavadini Kaul)

1. "During Abhimanyu's reign who succeeded Kanishka, Nagarjuna made
converts to Buddhism and defeated the Brahmans in discussion and
argument. Civil war soon followed and the Brahmans in alliance with a
local tribe named Nagas inflicted death, disaster and other untold
miseries upon the Buddhists..."
  (Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter 1- 'A Survey of
Ancient Hindu Rule', Pgs 4  &  5)

2. "During the reign of Nara "thousands of monastries were burnt, and
thousands of villages that supported those monastries were given over to
the Brahmans." Brahmans having succeeded in establishing their supremacy
set themselves in right earnest in strengthening themselves and their
position. Many superstitious observances and practices were invented.
Thought and culture were denied to everybody excepting themselves and
the modern Hinduism in Kashmir began its growth. But this degraded the
Brahmans themselves. During Mihirkula's reign many shameless practices
are ascribed to them..." (Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter
1- 'A Survey of Ancient Hindu Rule', Page 5)

3. "During the reign of Raja-deva (1252-1273 A. D.) some Bhattas
(Brahmans) who had helped in his investiture as king, having been
insulted by him, conspired to install somebody from amongst Khashas on
the throne of Kashmir. But their conspiracy did not long remain a secret
and an orgy of destruction and plunder was let loose upon them. Some
were killed and others suppressed with atrocious mercilessness, and to
save themselves the cry was raised everywhere 'Na Batoham..' "I am not a
Bhatta." This is the first onslaught recorded in history against the
Brahmans of Kashmir..."
(Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter 1- 'A Survey of Ancient
Hindu Rule', Page 16)

It is interesting to note that Kilam explicitly states and underscores
the fact that this 'first onslaught' on the Brahmans of Kashmir takes
place during the reign of a Hindu king. Muslim rule is definitively
established in Kashmir only in 1341 A.D. 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.

Jia Lal Kilam's book contains many instances of religious persecution,
of Hindus at the hand of some Muslim kings, of Kashmiri Sunni Muslims by
the Kashmiri Shia Muslim Chak dynasty, of Kashmiri Shia Muslims and
Kashmiri Pandits by the Sunni Afghan kings, of Kashmiri Muslims in
general by the Sikh rulers of Kashmir.

Through all of this Kilam is at pains to point out that the Kashmiri
Pandit survives, and with his predominant position in Kashmiri Society
intact. This happens through much of the reign of the Salatins, (Zain Al
Abedin hands them the task of land records and revenue collection, which
they continue to undertake - as patwaris - until the mid twentieth
century by official fiat, without interruption). They continue to hold
high offices in the royal court. The Mughal emperors are so beholden to
them that they decree that no Kashmiri Muslim will hold military office
and give over the military reins of power in Kashmir to Kashmiri
Pandits. The majority of Afghan rulers continue to patronize Pandits,
and when instances of persecution do occur, Pandit influence at Kabul is
sufficient to neutralize it. Some Pandit courtiers invite the Sikh
rulers into Kashmir as Afghan power declines (even as other Pandit
courtiers still remain committed to the resuscitation of Afghan power)
and finally with the rise of the Dogra power in the nineteenth century
the Pandits rise to a position of unquestioned pre-eminence. Kilam's
book is largely a remarkably unbiased account of this entire process.
He, unlike Rashneek Kher is not at all committed to the figure of the
Pandit as eternal victim. Nor is he keen to separate Kashmiri Pandits
from an Islamicate cultural sphere. He mentions how Kashmiri Pandits
wrote hymns to Goddess Sharda in Persian, and how well integrated they
were into the aristocratic Persianate cultural matrix that dominated
much of Central Asia. In fact, to be fair to the Kashmiri Pandit ethos,
we can see that it has no trace of anti-Muslim feeling. Kashmiri Pandit
elites were happier in the company of the Muslim aristocracy and higher
clergy than they were in the company of either the common Kashmiri
Muslim peasant, artisan or labourer, or for that matter, non Muslim
lower caste populations from the plains.

While JIa Lal Kilam is understandably given to valorizing Pandit
pre-eminence, just as he is given to lament episodes of the persecution
of Pandits when they occur (after all he is a Kashmiri Pandit, writing
the history of Kashmiri Pandits) , he does not undertake to practice the
theory of Pandit exceptionalism. He does not indulge in a reading of
history that paints Kashmiri Pandits as being the uninterrupted victim
of the history of Kashmir since the rise of Islam. Nor is he shy of
pointing out acts of persecution, intrigue and injustice that some
Kashmiri Pandits had been party to, both before, during and after the
advent of Islam in Kashmir. Reading Kilam we are forced to repeat what
we have already stated, no religion has a monopoly on intolerance.

Advaitavadini Kaul's "Buddhist Savants of Kashmir"
Finally, let me come to Rashneek's admonition to me that I should read a
book by a scholar called Advaitavadini Kaul. He says - "I would also
suggest that you read Dr,Advaitavadini Kaul's post doctoral work '
Buddhist Savants of Kashmir'...No where has she found any evidence of
Hindu kings breaking Buddhist Viharas."

Unfortunately, I have read Dr. Advaitavadini Kaul's post doctoral thesis
- at least the version that is published as a book by Utpal Publishers,
(formerly of Srinagar, now based in Delhi) - a publishing house well
known for its imprint of books sympathetic to the Indian nationalist
position on Kashmir, as exemplified by that section of the Kashmiri
Pandit intelligentsia which inspires Roots in Kashmir, Panun Kashmir and
other such organizations.

Now, Advaitavadini Kaul's book is quite detailed in its exposition of
the contribution made by Kashmiri (or Kashmir based) Buddhist scholars
and missionaries in the ancient and early medieval period - in Tibet,
China and Central Asia. But it is not so articulate when it comes to the
destiny of Buddhism in Kashmir itself. This is surprising, but not
entirely incomprehensible, after all, Dr. Kaul's primary concern is the
career of Kashmiri Buddhists outside Kashmir, and we cannot fault her
entirely if her book chooses not to engage in any substantial way with
the history of what happenned to Buddhism inside Kashmir.

I have read this book line by line, and while no where does it say
(contrary to Rashneek's assertion) that there is "no evidence of Hindu
kings breaking Buddhist Viharas", it does not dwell either on instances
of Shaivite or otherwise nominally non Buddhist Kings (I hesitate to use
the term 'Hindu' because of the artifice involved in using the word
'Hindu' in a pre modern context) involved in acts of iconoclasm and
temple destruction that targetted heterodox sects, especially Buddhism,
in Kashmir. Advaitavadini Kaul cites her Kalhan when it suits her to
construct an edifice of how Buddhism flourished in Kashmir. But she also
very conveniently omits to cite Kalhana's Rajtarangini when it comes to
tricky question of the destruction of Buddhist shrines. In fact she
avoids having to deal with this question altogether. Causing a not
invisible void to appear in her detailing of Buddhism in relation to
Kashmir.

Her only reference to the eventual eclipse of Buddhism in Kashmir occur
in the following three sentences. -

"In the following centuries Buddhism in Kashmir was overshadowed b y the
wide upsurge of the Vaishnava and Shaiva faiths. However inspite of the
overwhelming predominance of the Brahmanic Faith and the loss of royal
patronage Buddhism continued to flourish even as late as the 13th
century AD. This is supported by Rajtarangini and the epigraphic
evidence." (Advaitavadini Kaul : Buddhist Savants of Kashmir: Their
Contribution Abroad, Chapter 1, Page 8)

In other words,  Buddhism was 'overwhelmed, overshadowed' and
encountered a 'lack of royal patronage' but still survived, and the
Rajtarangini is conveniently cited as evidence for this assumption. In
fact, she asserts, it survived in pockets, till the 13th century, by
which time Islam is on the ascendant in Kashmir. Which suggests that
here too, Islam is at fault for the demise of the Kashmiri Buddhist
tradition.

But the fact that the very same Rajtarangini mentions repeatedly the
destruction of Buddhist temples by Kings, centuries before a single
Muslim sets foot in Kashmir can be conveniently overlooked, is a
surprising ommission on Advaitavadini Kaul's part. If we follow this
pattern of citation and ommission closely then we are compelled to
consider the possibility that Advaitavadini Kaul (who incidentally, also
is the editor of Jia Lal Kilam's text, though Kilam himself is by no
means reticent about the destruction of Buddhist shrines in pre-Islamic
Kashmir) is following the dictates of an agenda that is committed to the
whitewashing of the inconvenient and embarassing (embarrassing for the
apologists of Hindu revanchism that is)  historic record of
anti-Buddhist iconoclasm and religious persecution in pre-Islamic Kashmir.

Conclusion
All of this suggests that Rashneek Kher's (and subsequetly Pawan
Durani's) sad attempts at playing historian are ultimately plainly
propogandist exercises devoid of seriousness, substance or critical
depth. It is easy, far too easy to brandish a list of selected
quotations based on the calculation that no one will bother to actually
read the available textual record. It is easy, far too easy to assume
that all of us on this list will be too intimidated and terrorised by
the emotional charge of the narration of a one sided history of
persecution to do a careful counter reading of a deeply contested
history. Like all easy assumptions, these too have had their day, but
now their time is over. Doing that act of counter reading, taking the
care to read what the sources say is an exercise that some of us are
quite prepared to do. And whenever anyone tries to derail this list by
the promotion of a particular secterian agenda, they will encounter
diligent, patient, meticulous objection. Anyone attempting to offer any
more half baked histories should understand that they do so at the risk
of appearing very foolish indeed.

At the very beginning of this vexed exchange on Kashmir, some months
ago, I had suggested to those on this list who seem to be making a habit
out of attempting to cash in on this vulgar exhibitionism of pain, that
instead of making a spectacle of suffering, they consider the worth of
practising a modicum of reticence, if for nothing else, just out of
respect for all those (Pandit  and Muslim) who have suffered in Kashmir.

At the risk of discursive redundance, and with apologies to all, I would
like to take this opportunity to repeat my suggestion. I am addressing
those (especially Rashneek Kher and Pawan Durani) who have thrown their
half baked readings of the history of Kashmir in our direction in the
past few months. If you have the least bit of respect for those you
claim to speak on behalf of, learn at least not to dissimulate, not to
quote fragmentary sources, or  to hide inconvenient truths, when you
attempt to speak in their name. Each time you do so, the memory of the
dead you claim to speak for is desecrated, and the cause you hope to
serve is damaged, perhaps irreparably. You lose sympathy and the chances
that anyone will take you the least bit seriously. Learn to be less smug
and arrogant about categories like guilt and innocence and learn to
respect the complexity and the difficulty of speaking about a
contentious past. Work harder at the construction of your arguments, and
even those who might disagree with you will treat you with respect.

And if you cannot bring yourself to undertake this level of maturity, or
to work as hard as is necessary, then at least try a little silence for
a while. It might compel you to examine the depths of what you call your
pain in a more serious manner.

I sincerely hope that my suggestion will be understood and taken in the
spirit with which it is being offered.

best

Shuddha,

Deepavali, 09 November 2007, Delhi

-------------------------------

END