Author: Meenakshi Jain
Publication: Organiser
Date: July 2, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=137&page=29
Introduction: The continued attempt to put
a secular gloss on the iconoclastic fervour of Mahmud Ghaznavi is of a piece
of the Marxist endeavour to sanitize medieval Indian history. Mahmud's reputation
in the Muslim world rested on two inter-related accomplishments- breaking
the idols of Al-Hind and dehoarding the temples of their treasures. The destruction
of Somnath was hailed as "the crowning glory of Islam over idolatry,
and elevated Mahmud to the status of a hero".
Though the relentless pressure of several
aggrieved groups has forced left historians to backtrack on some of their
more contentious assertions on Indian history, this seems a tactical retreat
rather than a sincere rectification of position. The cosmetic changes made
by Professor Satish Chandra in his Medieval India, textbook for Class XI,
as well as the response of the Committee of Historians to the objections raised
by Shri Dinanath Batra and others in the Delhi High Court, smack of a forced
withdrawal. But whether forced or voluntary, the petitioners have undoubtedly
secured some acceptance of their viewpoint, by no means a small achievement.
Nonetheless, objections even to the revised
left interpretation of Indian history remain, some of which bear recording.
Despite the newly donned mask of neutrality, the antipathy to indigenous culture
and traditions remains strong. This manifests itself, for instance, in the
continued reference to the so-called Hindu take-over of Buddhist and Jain
sacred sites. Two specific instances have been cited-that of the Jagannath
temple at Puri (said to have originally been a Buddhist site) and the temple
at Qutub (stated to have initially been a Jain shrine). However, no evidence
to substantiate the claim has been presented.
The persistent reference to temple desecration
by Hindu kings is obviously intended to underplay Islamic iconoclasm in the
subcontinent. In this connection it is relevant to recall that Professor Andre
Wink (Al-Hind, vol. II) found the evidence of Hindu destruction of Buddhist
and Jain places of worship "too vague to be convincing," and equally
pertinently, not backed by shastric injunction.
Hindu rulers who appropriated idols of rival
kings in times of warfare, honoured the images thus acquired, even building
stately temples for them. The Chandella ruler, Yasovarman, for instance, built
the Lakshmana temple at Khajuraho to house a gold image he had acquired from
the Pratihara ruler. The Vijayanagar ruler, Krishnadeva Raya, likewise constructed
the Krishnaswami temple for an image of Balkrishna procured during a campaign
against the Gajapatis of Orissa, and the Vitthalswami temple for a Vitthala
image brought from an expedition to Pandharpur. Such acts can hardly be viewed
as at par with Islamic iconoclasm.
The continued attempt to put a secular gloss
on the iconoclastic fervour of Mahmud Ghaznavi is of a piece of the Marxist
endeavour to sanitize medieval Indian history. Mahmud's reputation in the
Muslim world rested on two inter-related accomplishments- breaking the idols
of Al-Hind and dehoarding the temples of their treasures. The destruction
of Somnath was hailed as "the crowning glory of Islam over idolatry,
and elevated Mahmud to the status of a hero". Mahmud's iconoclasm, moreover,
was always directed against non-Islamic objects. When he attacked the Ismailis
(regarded as heretics by the Sunnis) in Multan, he did not destroy their mosque,
but left it to decay.
The Committee of Historians has brushed the
objection of the petitioners on the inadequate treatment of Hindu dynasties
between the eighth and thirteenth centuries. That the objection is not without
substance can be judged from the fact that among the ruling houses summarily
dismissed or not mentioned at all are the Chandellas of Bundelkhand; the Paramaras
of Malwa; the renowned Jayasimha Siddharaja of Gujarat: and the builders of
the Lingaraja, Jagannath and Sun temples in Orissa. Surely exclusions of such
magnitude reduce the authenticity of the text.
A few more examples of faulty presentation
may be mentioned. Shankara has been dated to "probably" the ninth
century, without clarifying that the tradition places him considerably earlier.
An honest rendition demanded that the earlier dates associated with him also
be given. Finally, it is remarkable that even now, while reconstructing the
troubled history of the last two Sikh Gurus, recourse is taken to eighteenth
century Persian works, and the Bichitr Natak, the near contemporary account
written by Guru Tegh Bahadur's son, Guru Gobind Singh, is not taken note of.
But then selective use of sources has long been a Marxist preserve.
(The author is a noted columnist.)
