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

[Shivam Vij]

What an excellent response Shuddha. Few, indeed, would care to
reserach so much for the sake of facts. One is tempted to, as indeed
you too have done, take this out of the Kashmiri context and into the
larger context of Hindutva where the narrative of 'eternal victimhood'
is in exactly the same way used to build a discourse of violence and
subjugation. To be shown in this detail how "Hindu" rulers were given
to violence amongst other "Hindus" and Buddhists completely demolishes
the possibility of any ordinary individual succumbing to the appeal of
the 'eternal victimhood' argument. To see "Hindus" kill and maim and
rape and slaughter and burn in Gujarat five years ago, then, does not
seem an aberration.

best
shivam

On 11/9/07, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>