Author: Chandan Mitra
Publication: India Today
Date: February 16, 2004
Introduction: Ten reasons why Romila
Thapar's meeting with Mahmud of Ghazni at Somnath is historic
Eminent historian Romila Thapar
has an agenda and a central character in her authoritative monograph on
the high-profile temple at Somnath in Gujarat. But it is an agenda that
dare not take its name. And as for the central dramatis persona, she does
not even mention him. After regretting the involvement of various Congress
leaders, including India's first President Rajendra Prasad, in the rebuilding
of the Somnath temple in 1951, Thapar refers to the most recent challenge
to the "secular credentials of Indian society". That being the rath yatra
organised by the VHP "in association with leaders of the BJP". L.K. Advani,
who electrified India with his 1991 campaign and put his party on the road
to power by making Hindutva a mainstream ideology, is not named throughout
the narrative.
As a historical work, Thapar's scholarship
is difficult to fault. She has meticulously studied various accounts of
Mahmud of Ghazni's destruction of the temple in the 11th century. She has
carried the narrative through to contemporary times, explaining the reasons
for the resurgence of Hindu sentiment in the 19th century on this issue,
leading to the temple's rebuilding after Independence. The volume, however,
is so apparent in its purpose that it can only preach to the converted.
Considering the dwindling band of
Marxists and their fellow-travellers in the arena of Indian history (since
they don't control university appointments any more), it is doubtful how
many would uncork champagne bottles at the publication of this scholastic
endeavour. For the general public, the book makes laborious reading. Even
secular fundamentalists from a non-history background would not be tempted
to persevere through the Byzantine complexities of textual and interpretational
rivalries among the Turks, Arabs, Chalukyas, Rajputs, Jainas, Shaivites,
colonialists and the Hindu nationalists.
If a sahmat-type organisation were
to sum up Thapar's treatise in a pamphlet, it would read something like
this:
1. Undeniably, Mahmud of Ghazni
raided a temple at Somnath and destroyed the idol there.
2. Although Persian sources extol
his achievement and refer to the many infidels he killed, the purpose of
the raid was economic, perhaps even iconoclastic, but not communal.
3. It is even possible that Mahmud
believed the Somnath icon to be that of an early Arabic Goddess, Manat,
for Somnath might even be a bastardisation of the Arabic su-manat. She
was one of the goddesses Prophet Muhammed once said could be worshipped,
but then retracted, claiming that the assertion was influenced by Satan.
The reference to Manat is contained in the so-called Satanic Verses, subsequently
deleted from the Quran.
4. Jaina and Sanskrit sources, on
the other hand, make only cursory references to Mahmud's repeated raids.
They don't repeat stories like Mahmud smashing the idol into smithereens
and feeding Brahmins the lime that emerged from its ruins after breaking
his promise not to destroy the lingam and confine himself only to loot.
This suggests Mahmud did not either
divide society or permanently traumatise Hindus by his actions, as "communalists"
have since led us to believe. It is immaterial that non-Muslims might have
feared offending the ascendancy of Muslim political and military prowess
and dared not question such actions. (Postscript: Alternatively, they may
not have wanted to wallow in the angst of their humiliation at the hands
of the Yavanas. But that would be a politically incorrect position to take.)
5. Hindu rulers frequently raided
temples for booty and there was nothing extraordinary about Mahmud's or
subsequent Muslim desecrations of Somnath. Anyway, Hindus were not Hindus
(they still aren't), but a group of people divided by caste and subcaste
residing in a place called India.
6. The Somnath temple was repeatedly
renovated by various local rulers and the worship of the deity went on.
This is contrary to suggestions that it had been converted into a mosque.
The reconstructions were necessitated by sea spray that routinely damaged
the structure. In other words, irrespective of Mahmud's raid, the temple
would have fallen into disuse and, thus, its projection as a symbol of
Islamic intolerance of Hindu beliefs is unwarranted.
7. The Arabs had settled in Sindh
and Gujarat long before Mahmud's incursions and lived in perfect harmony
with Hindus. A merchant from Hormuz in the Gulf, who engaged in the trade
of horses, was actually given land by a Hindu ruler to construct a mosque
close to Somnath. This suggests there was no antagonism between the two
communities. In fact, Hindus explained the destruction of Somnath as an
inevitability in a dark age called the Kaliyug.
8. The entire mischief began with
governor-general Ellenborough who premeditatedly relied on Persian accounts
of Hindu humiliation and decided to play them up to drive a wedge between
Hindus and Muslims. His efforts were challenged by Macaulay who opposed
"Linga-ism" and denounced support for obscurantism and idolatry. Ellenborough
mistakenly sought to appease maharaja Ranjit Singh and brought back the
gates of Somnath allegedly ferried away by Mahmud, but these turned out
to be fakes.
9. In the 19th century, Hindu historians
and politicians made a big deal of Mahmud's raids. While K.M. Munshi wrote
emotion-charged novels, Bengali nationalists got unnecessarily worked up
over these issues. Munshi was influenced by people like Bankim Chandra
Chatterjee, Aurobindo and Vivekananda. (How terrible!)
10. Taking a cue from the likes
of Munshi, Gujarati leaders, including Vallabhbhai Patel, supported the
reconstruction of the temple after Independence much to the chagrin of
the secular Nehru. This was an assertion of Hindu, not Indian, nationalism.
It only helped the "communal" forces that plotted the fall of Babri Masjid
at the "supposed" Ram Janmabhoomi by launching a mobilisation drive from
Somnath.
I believe I have not unfairly summarised
Thapar. She is entitled to her views and has taken pains to try and establish
it through scholarship. Sadly for her, very few will believe her.
