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

[Partha Dasgupta]

Hi,

1.   'Mlechha' was a derogatory term to describe people who 'did not
      follow Vedic principles' much as 'Firang' is used today for
'foreigners'.
      It was also used to refer to Meat Eaters which covers a vast part of
      the tribals who can not by any stretch of imagination be considered
      foreigners.

2.  The usage of the word 'Turk' for Harsha was a distancing by the local
     populace in those days to disassociate the King from the trend.
However,
     if 'foreigner;, 'outsider' and 'mlechha' are considered, then Harsha
was by
     birth and place certainly a Hindu and not a Turk. In fact, even as per
the
     Rajatarangini he ate pork and was not a full convert to Islam.

3.  Rashneek's debate is not about outsiders/foreigners. It is about the
destruction
     of religious structures - which Harsha as a Hindu ruler did to both
Temples and
     Buddhist monastries irrespective of what relegion they followed.

4.  Even if we reach a point where we accept conversion (thereby happily
throwing
     Harsha out of the 'Hindu' group and disowning his activities), it does
not make
     Muslims outsiders. Other than any one else who may have converted for
whatever
     reason, "the Turk king Harsha" as he's referred to in the Rajatarangini
was certainly
     a local and cannot be considered an outsider however his behaviour may
have been.
     We may want to disown him, but that does not change Harsha's origin.

5.  All that aside, let us for a moment agree that Islamic iconoclasts did
despoil
    some temples some decades or centuries back. Now what? Are we going to
rebuild
    all those temples after researching how many were destroyed and where?
While we
    are going about doing that will we remove the British and Portugese
structures all over
    India - including the North/South Blocks and a host of other buildings.
That sounds
    rather ridiculous to me and if that time & money is going to be spent I
do hope it's
    spent on education, hospitals, infrastructure and tons of other areas
that this country
    needs shoring up on.

Rgds, Partha
...............................

On Jan 9, 2008 5:53 PM, 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.
> _________________________________________
> 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/>




-- 
Partha Dasgupta
+919811047132