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

[we wi]

Rashneek,
   
  Forget to add "Yavan" also gives the same meaning. The terms Turk/Mleccha/Yavan used in Sanskrit literature (Not in Rajatarangini only) to describe the outsiders/foreigners. 
   
  I gone through all the 5 volumes that you posted explaining the scenarios case wise. No words to praise the work. Probably come out due to anguish in condemning the fallacious/malicious history.
   
  Dhatri.
  
we wi <dhatr1i at yahoo.com> wrote:
    Hi Rashneek,
   
  This is really Great work and nice explanation on myths.  Not only the terms turk produces the meaning (outsiders/foreigners who were Muslims in this case) but also the term mleccha will also produce the same meaning(outsiders/foreigners who were Muslims in this case) widely used to refer in times.
   
  Regards,
  Dhatri.
  
rashneek kher <rashneek at gmail.com> wrote:
  PART-III



I am devoting this part to Harsha alone.This is because he has been
pulled out of the historical wilderness time and again by the Marxist
historians.This one example is used as a counterweight the huge
historical evidence that we have to support religious persecution and
Iconoclasm by hundreds of muslim rulers all over south Asia and not
just Kashmir alone.

It seems as if just because Harsha did what Muslim rulers followed as
a matter of policy and an instrument of abuse we are to condone their
acts.



Harsha"The Iconoclast"



Let us first see how Shudda looks at Kalhana especially in the context
of the above discussion.



My learned friend writes



*"We know that Kalhana describes Sankaravarman as a destroyer of sixty

four temples. But the motives for this destruction, which Kalhana

attributes to greed alone, can be read differently"*



This leaves me thoroughly confused for one hand Shudda questions
Kalhana's un-biased view on History as you will read above he raises a
question mark and says"*can be read differently"* while at the
beginning of second series of his essay he says



*Kalhana's importance for the understanding of early medieval history in
**South Asia** is unquestionable. Especially because his writing embodies a

singular and significant model for historiographic investigation and

accounting, rare in the pre - Islamicate cultures of **South Asia**. He

describes and lists the events that mark the reigns of rulers without

favour or prejudice. He makes an effort at consistence and attempts to

maintains a rigourous standard as far as chronology and the duration of

reigns is concerned. His descriptions of everyday life, of the seasons,

of customs, religious beliefs, rituals, war and political intrigue - all

furnish valuable details about what life would have been like in
**Kashmir**. He explicitly marks a distinction between the mythic and the

historic phases of his narrative. He is especially important because

reading Kalhana, one finds it impossible to state that iconoclasm and

secterian strife was the special preserve of Muslim rulers in **South

Asia**, as Hindutva apologists are wont to do.*



Please read the last line carefully.I post it again for the benefit of
the readers



*He is especially important because

reading Kalhana, one finds it impossible to state that iconoclasm and

secterian strife was the special preserve of Muslim rulers in **South

Asia**, as Hindutva apologists are wont to do.*

* *

*Now let Shudda show me a line wherein I have said that Iconoclasm and
Secterian Strife was the preserve of Muslim Rulers alone*



To make my point of view clear on this I am quoting myself from an
article I wrote long back for Greater Kashmir(a separatist leaning
newspaper published from Srinagar).This shall prove beyond doubt what
my take is on the kings of Kashmir,irrespective of their religious
leanings..

* *

*"Only when one looks back into the pages of history one realizes how
unfortunate have we been. Except for three kings ie Lalitaditya Muktapida,
Avantivarman and Sultan Zainulabidin in whose regimes we saw development and
prosperity in Kashmir,we have mostly been ruled by cruel despots.Till the
advent of Islam we have been ruled by kings who were more or less indigenous
rulers except for Asoka and rulers of Kushana dynasty. With the advent of
Islam, we had kings of foreign origin ruling us. However the uniting thread
among all these kings was their cruelty and in dealing with their subjects."
*

* *

*Romila Thapar and Harbans Mukhiya-Lies and Un-substantiated Claims*



Let us examine what Romila Thapar,A L Basham and Mukhiya have to say
about iconoclasm by Hindu kings in Kashmir in their various
articles.Although I could not put my hands on all the articles which
Shudda had referred to yet I did read enough to get a hang of what
Romila Thapar(whose knowledge and erudition of Sanskrit has always
been a question mark) and Mukhiya whose Marxist leftist credentials
have never been under question.So we kind of know which side of their
bread is buttered.We will try and understand what Basham says about
"Harsha the Iconoclast".I am leaving Mukhiya alone but if need be ,we
will discuss his understanding of Harsha as well.I will also like the
forum to read through this piece of extremely unbiased work by an
American Student.

* *

*Puzzling Dimensions and Theoretical Knots in my **Graduate**
**School** Research By Yvette Claire Rosser, M.A., Ph.D. *

* *

*http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/s_es/s_es_rosse_puzzle_frameset.htm*

*A few days later I met with Professor Romila Thapar and told her Prof.
Mukhia had told me that she could provide information substantiate the
hypothesis that Hindu rulers in the past had regularly destroyed temples in
neighboring kingdoms. She said that she had not written anything but that
Richard Eaton, an American scholar had recently written about this
phenomenon in the introduction of his latest book. *

*A few months later in the December 9 and 16 editions of Frontline published
by the Leftist leaning editor N. Ram of The Hindu newspaper Dr. Eaton did
publish a long article in two parts that discussed in detail the destruction
and desecration of various temples during the Medieval Period. In his
article, Eaton attempted to prove the assertion made by Dr. Mukhia's and his
colleagues. However it was argued, Eaton failed to understand the difference
in scale and magnitude between the few times Hindus raided the temples of
other kings, and the much more wide spread and architecturally devastating
attacks from Muslim armies.*

*I spoke with Professors Thapar and Mukhia and told them that I had heard
about Harsha in **Kashmir**, recounted by the poet Kalhana in the
'Rajtarangini'. Harsha destroyed some temples and viharas, but most scholars
consider Harsha's actions as exceptions to the usual practice. I pointed out
that all of the literature indicates that Harsha was definitely only looting
the temples for gold and riches, not desecrating them for ideological
reasons. Though the result is the same, the temples were attacked, the
intent and the scale of the destruction was very different. **I also
mentioned that there seems to have been one or two instances in Rajasthan
and **Gujarat** where competing Maharajas raided temples in the neighboring
kingdom and stole a murti (consecrated statue) which was considered to be
endowed with powerful attributes. Then, bringing it back to his own kingdom,
the king erected a new and more fabulous temple for the murti. This type of
vandalism is a very different case, the murti was removed as a trophy not as
an unholy thing to be desecrated. In the accounts that I had heard, the king
who had looted the temple of his adversary did not throw the captured statue
in the roadway or bury it into the staircase of a religious structure in his
kingdom to be trod upon, but, interestingly, he built an even grander temple
and had it installed with fanfare. Though the actions may have similarities,
the motivations were very different. *

*I also suggested that these types of attacks on temples were not
representative of usual practice, but in fact were very much the exception
to the rule. Even after reading the Eaton article, I was not impressed by
the meager evidence. Though the article very few verifiable examples offered
to substantiate this often-repeated claim that Hindus were just a guilty as
Muslims for breaking statues and destroying temples. I told suggested to
several Leftist scholars in Indian that they should stop using that tact
about the Hindus destroying temples, because hardly anyone in
**India**really believes them. The
evidence that Hindus were equally culpable for the destruction of temples
and viharas, similar to the large scale destruction of Hindu temples by the
various Muslim dynasties is simply untenable. Though the Marxist historians
in **India** use the case of King Harsh in **Kashmir**, it is a rare
historical exception, certainly not proof of a legacy of Hindu-driven
carnage. Yet the historians who make these claims have failed to uncover any
real evidence to substantiate their theory of Hindu aggression. *

Let us move on to see what an independent Belgian Indologist Keonraad
Elst has to say about claims made by Romila Thapar about Harsh's
iconoclasm.Thapar's claims seem to have found favour with Shudda for
they fall in line with his pre-determined understanding of Kalhana.* *

*Kalhana's first-hand testimony:***

*Now, let us look into the historical references cited by Romila Thapar. Of
Banabhatta's Harshacharita, concerning Harsha of Kanauj (r.606-647), I have
no copy available here, so I will keep that for another paper. Meanwhile, I
have been able to consult both the Sanskrit original and the English
translation of Kalhana's Rajatarangini, and that source provides a clinching
testimony.*

*Harsha or Harshadeva of **Kashmir** (r.1089-1111) has been called the "Nero
of **Kashmir**", and this "because of his cruelty" (S.B. Bhattacherje:
Encyclopaedia of Indian Events and Dates, Sterling Publ., Delhi 1995, p.A-20).
He is described by Kalhana as having looted and desecrated most Hindu and
Buddhist temples in **Kashmir**, partly through an office which he had
created, viz. the "officer for despoiling god-temples". The general data on
11th-century **Kashmir** already militate against treating him as a typical
Hindu king who did on purely Hindu grounds what Muslim kings also did, viz.
to destroy the places of worship of rival religions. For, **Kashmir** had
already been occupied by Masud Ghaznavi, son of Mahmud, in 1034, and Turkish
troops were a permanent presence as mercenaries to the king.*

*Harsha was a fellow-traveller: not yet a full convert to Islam (he still
ate pork, as per Rajatarangini 7:1149), but quite adapted to the Islamic
ways, for "he ever fostered with money the Turks, who were his centurions"
(7:1149). There was nothing Hindu about his iconoclasm, which targeted Hindu
temples, as if a Muslim king were to demolish mosques rather than temples.
All temples in his kingdom except four (enumerated in 7:1096-1098, two of
them Buddhist) were damaged. This behaviour was so un-Hindu and so
characteristically Islamic that Kalhana reports: "In the village, the town
or in Srinagara there was not one temple which was not despoiled by the Turk
king Harsha." (7:1095)*

*So there you have it: "the Turk king Harsha". Far from representing a
separate Hindu tradition of iconoclasm, Harsha of **Kashmir** was a somewhat
peculiar (viz. fellow-traveller) representative of the Islamic tradition of
iconoclasm. Like Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, he despoiled and looted
Hindu shrines, not non-Hindu ones. Influenced by the Muslims in his employ,
he behaved like a Muslim.*

*And this is said explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as
proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at
all, she must be knowing that it doesn't support the claim she is making.
Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in
the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she
simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has
been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even
while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana. *

*A.L.Basham*

Thankfully I did get to read Basham's article titled*"Harsha of
**Kashmir**and the Iconoclast Ascetics"
*

Basham writes and I quote"The dissolute king Harsha or Harshadeva(AD
1089-1101),when in financial straits,was advised by his evil counseller
Lotsdhara to restore his fortunes by looting the temples and melting down
the images of the gods"

It is evident from the sentence that it was financial problems (due to
various vices) that prompted him to resort to doing what he did.

Although Basham contradicts himself later in the same article by saying that
the motive could not be financial alone but he attributes it to King
enjoying acts of heresy.He even contradicts Aurel Stein's explanation that
King had been under the influence of turuska's or (Muslims or outsiders) who
in this case happened to be Muslims.
Even if we accept his explanation, there is nothing to prove that he
destroyed temples to promote his faith or ideology (Hinduism) while the
contrary can be proved by the following verse from Kalhana's Rajatarangni
Book 7 verse 1095

*"In the village, the town or in Srinagara there was not one temple which
was not despoiled by the Turk king Harsha." *

Kalhana calling him a turk (which was a synonym for
Muslim/outsider/foreigner in Kalhana's vocabulary.At many places Kalhana
uses the term turuska's to describe Muslims.We will discuss the word Turuska
in detail when we analyse Shudda's references to Rajatarangni.

Although I do not completely agree with either Basham or Keonard Elst,the
reasons for which are the following.

1.Koenard Elst has got it wrong that Kashmir was conquered by Masud of
Ghaznvi in 1034.There are no direct/indirect references or credible sources
of history to prove that fact.I agree with Shudda when he says that Islamic
rule was still some two centuries away.

2.Basham's assertion that we should look to Ajivikas as Harsh's source of
his iconoclasm also seems to be a far fetched argument.Shudda himself
concludes his argument by stating the following"Basham's argument,albeit
speculative,is less reliant on conjecture than the automatic identification
of Turuska with Muslim that bedevils the other efforts to wrestle with the
complexity of his reign that I have referred to above"

Irrespective of the arguments set forth by Romila Thapar,Basham,Elst and
others it is conclusively proved in case of Harsha that although he did
destroy temples and Viharas both but the reason was not to promote Hinduism
or to subjugate Buddhism.What however can be argued is that he may be doing
at the behest of whom Kalhana calls Turks(outsiders/foreigners who were
Muslims in this case) what later Muslim kings did.ie.Try and Destroy the
very root of Hinduism in Sarada Desha.


-- 
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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
    
---------------------------------
  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.