indian empire in the third millenium

8/7/2019 Indian Empire in the Third Millenium

1/58

INDIAN EMPIRE IN THE THIRD MILLENIUM

Imperialist forces of history and the Somnath Temple

Aron

This lithograph is taken from plate 10 of 'Afghaunistan'

by Lietenant James Rattray.


2/58

The area around the tomb of Mahmud of Ghazni (998-

1030) Rattray thought to be one of the most pleasing

spots in Afghanistan.

The tomb was entered via a spacious courtyard, watered

by a clear stream. Visitors would pass through coveredpassages to a garden framed by mulberry, plum, pear,

peach, apricot, cherry and rose trees. Their blossoms

hung over exquisitely carved marble tombs, including

Mahmud's. This was a place of pilgrimage, decoratedwith flowers and peacock feathers: Afghan symbols of

royalty.

The folding doors shown were reputed to be the famousSandalwood Doors, carried off in 1026 by Mahmud after

his destruction of the Somnath Temple in Gujarat, during

the last of his devastatingly successful forays in India.

The British removed them from the tomb in 1842,

laboriously transporting them to Agra Fort, where they

were found to be replicas of the original.

This is in variance with the below -

In 1842, Edward Law, 1st Earl of Ellenborough issued his famous 'Proclamation of the Gates'

in which he ordered the British army in Afghanistan to return via Ghazni and bring back to

India the sandalwood gates from the tomb of Mahmud of Ghazni in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

These were believed to have been taken by Mahmud from Somnath. There was a debate in

the House of Commons in London in 1843 on the question of the gates of the Somanatha

temple.[20] After much cross-fire between the British Government and the opposition, the

gates were uprooted and brought back in triumph. But on arrival, they were found to be of

Egyptian workmanship and not associated in any way with India.[11]

So they were placed in a

store-room in the Agra Fort where they still lie to the present day.

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnath_temple#cite_note-br-10


3/58

Somnath rose and fell many a time and the amazing drama of the

iconoclast's zeal for its desecration and the devout Hindu's

passionate desire for its restoration continued till the 15th century,

when the Hindus finally gave up in sheer despair and built a new

temple nearby.

Northern India had ceased to attract Mahmud, for the spoils of its

most wealthy temples were already in his treasury. But the rich and

prosperous province of Gujarat was still untouched, and on October

18, 1025, he started from Ghazni with his regular troops and thirtythousand volunteer-horsemen for the temple of Somnath, situated

at the distance of a bow-shot from the mouth of the Saraswati, by

the side of which the earthly body ofLord Krishna had breathed its

last.

Ghazni Mohammed descended on Somnath in 1024 when the

temple was so prosperous that it has 300 musicians, 500 dancing

girls and 300 barbers to shave the heads of visiting pilgrims. There is

a description to this effect by Al Biruni, an Arab traveller. After a two-day battle, Ghazni Mohammed carted off its fabulous wealth and

also destroyed the temple, thus setting a precedent of Muslims

destroying the temple and Hindus rebuilding it, for it was razed again

in 1297, 1394 and finally in 1706 by Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperor

who was notorious for such acts.

Mahmud entered the temple and possessed himself of its fabulous

wealth. `Not a hundredth part of the gold and precious stones he

obtained from Somnath were to be found in the treasury of any king

of Hindustan.' Later historians have related how Mahmud refused

the enormous ransom offered by the Brahmans, and preferred the

title of `Idol-breaker (But-shikan) to that of `Idol-seller' (But-

farosh). He struck the idol with his mace and his piety was instantly

rewarded by the precious stones that came out of its belly. This is an


4/58

impossible story. Apart from the fact that it lacks all contemporary

confirmation, the Somnath idol was a solid unsculptured linga, not a

statue, and stones could not have come out of its belly. That the idol

was broken is unfortunately true enough, but the offer of the

Brahmans, and Mahmud's rejection of the offer, is a fable of laterdays. The temple, which stands today, was built in the traditional

pattern on the original site by the sea, thanks to the efforts of Sardar

Vallabhbhai Patel.

http://www.indhistory.com/somnath-temple.html

We must reconsider the history of Somnath temple that points to

many unresolved questions of it regarding the National History.

Reconciliation being an accepted process around the world, in

coming to terms with historic wrongs, in India a vehement school of

entrenched ideologues leaning to the old Left had been particularly

averse to laying bare the documented history.


5/58

Refusing to lend them, to this process in an open dialogue and lastly,

for any reconsideration of these historic wrongs during the Islamic

invasions.

Nor they would agree to an exposure of their own history to presentgenerations of both Muslims and Hindus, by unsubstantiated denial

of such events during the national subjugation by Islamic

Imperialism, a part of which had been Iconoclasm of native cultures.

This Dark Age had neither been unique pertaining to Islamic

conquest nor been any different from events that are attested

elsewhere in Islamic history.

The difficulty however, with India, the subjugated natives retained

their identity as a majority and survived as a living culture quite

distinct from the faith introduced by the Islamic Rulers.

Instead of the understanding of this as a natural part and pattern of

Islamic Conquests, and the need to view this as set apart from

Religious affinity of the present, giving acknowledgment to native

identity and sensibilities, this school of ideologues have sought toencourage a denial of history itself and the justification of embracing

the mindset of the bygone Imperial invasion towards the pagan

natives, as a legitimate and equally just cause.

This had embittered the bearers of aggrieved native story, and

resulted in an anachronistic resurfacing in the present of very same

historical forces along much the same lines of Imperial Thought

processes and attitudes regarding them.

It gets even more ridiculous when some Historians in Pakistan while

writing the history of Sind and Iranians regarding Persian Conquest

by Arabs, are quite candid in the narrative regarding the fate and

plight of native civilisation that went under the Invasion, and


6/58

granting the due sympathy and corrective call in the present

generations attitude towards the native Creed and their ancestors,

Muslims in India are encouraged to maintain a denial altogether of

any historic wrong and the moral positioning of themselves as

defenders and inheritors of the consequences of the forces of

Imperialist Subjugation.

It is this that compels them to not only carry the crusade of the long

past Crosses and banners of Islamic invaders but sadly also bear the

full weight of that Cross in the penalty of this needless and

unenlightened conflict that are unsustainable and self injurious.

If anything, the self avowed promoters of secularist ideal have made

it easier the job of Reactionaries among the Muslim community to

pull them back into a medieval mind frame and acquire for

themselves a policy line of insensitivity towards historic injuries and

the justification of its repetition on specious reasonings.

Not unexpectedly, the Turko-Persian chronicles indulge in elaboratemyth-making around the event, some of which I shall now relate.

So begins our story teller who is an iconic Historian and a laborious

defender of Iconoclasm- Romilla Thopar.

The myth making is all pertaining to the open boast of Islamic zeal in

iconoclasm celebrated by every Islamic court Historian, most of

whom are first hand reports and eye witness accounts of both the

what Islamic Imperialists executed during their long rule over India.

A major poet of the eastern Islamic world, Farrukhi Sistani, who

claims that he accompanied Mahmud to Somanatha, provides a

fascinating explanation for the breaking of the idol.11

This


7/58

explanation has been largely dismissed by modern historians as too

fanciful, but it has a significance for the assessment of iconoclasm.

According to him, the idol was not of a Hindu deity but of a pre-

Islamic Arabian goddess.He tells us that the name Somnat (as it

was often written in Persian) is actually Su-manat, the place ofManat.

We know from the Qur'an that Lat, Uzza and Manat were the three

pre-Islamic goddesses widely worshipped,12

and the destruction of

their shrines and images, it was said, had been ordered by the

Prophet Mohammad. Two were destroyed, but Manat was believed

to have been secreted away to Gujarat and installed in a place ofworship. According to some descriptions, Manat was an aniconic

block of black stone, so the form could be similar to a lingam. This

story hovers over many of the Turko-Persian accounts, some taking

it seriously, others being less emphatic and insisting instead that

the icon was of a Hindu deity.

THE identification of the Somanatha idol with that of Manat has little

historical credibility. There is no evidence to suggest that the temple

housed an image of Manat. Nevertheless, the story is significant to

the reconstruction of the aftermath of the event since it is closely

tied to the kind of legitimation which was being projected for

Mahmud.

How should it be so significant while no credible historian would

connect Prophet Mohamad of the 7 th century and the Al-Manat

both of whom never stepped outside Arabia to our understanding

the fate of centuries old Hindu Temple in India?

Here is the explanation-

The link with Manat added to the acclaim for Mahmud. Not only was

he the prize iconoclast in breaking Hindu idols, but in destroying


8/58

Manat he had carried out what were said to be the very orders of the

Prophet. He was therefore doubly a champion of Islam.13

Other

temples were raided by him and their idols broken, but Somanatha

receives special attention in all the accounts of his activities.

Writing of his victories to the Caliphate, Mahmud presents them asmajor accomplishments in the cause of Islam. And not surprisingly,

Mahmud becomes the recipient of grandiose titles.This establishes

his legitimacy in the politics of the Islamic world, a dimension which

is overlooked by those who see his activities only in the context of

northern India.

Which is that the destruction of Somnath and its Linga, are more to

do with firstly Mohamads attempts to enhance his pristege with

the Kalifa, and improve his approval ratings as an iconoclast.

Which is to start explaining away the obvious-?

Even though it underlines the best and easy way to earn

respectability and acceptance was to demonstrate ones

iconoclasm, massacre and persecution of pagan Hindus to the

global Umma and the Imperial head of the expansionist Islamic

Empire- the Kalifa by this Imperial raider.

Which doesnt fail to account for his activities only in the context of

northern India, but also explains the whole Islamic rules persistent

brutal record and needs no more or further attempts at

explanation at this uniform display of iconoclasm and anti-

paganism as a constant and repetitive feature.

The idol of Al-Manath among Arabs was popularly imagined to

have been secreted away and kept to worship at Somanath

escaping its breaking down when Prophet Mohamad entered the

sanctuary at Kaaba, due to its striking resemblance to the aniconic

Linga at Somnath.


9/58

One thing common to both Pre-Islamic Arabs and Hindus was the

worship of both anthropomorphic idols and aniconic stones.

The Kaaba enshrined 360 icons, many were anthropomorphic and

out of which two corner stones and an aniconic Black Stone alonewere retained after Prophet Mohamad destroyed them personally

with his son in law Ali, after entering the kaaba shrine after the

surrender of Meccans and Al manath is specifically mentioned as

getting broken up at the lead as a demonstration of Islamic

supremacy .

The suspicion by Arabs at the eerie resemblance to al-Manath

therefore only points to the very close features of pre-islamic Arab

paganism and Hinduism.

They both shared the same fate- not having to toil hard in finding

any other explanation.

Both the prophet of Islam and his converted Arabs to Islam who

later presented themselves as the conquering Ghazis or warriors of

Islam have stated the mission in quite plain terms- which is that

Islam considers Idolatry and all pagan faiths, starting from this

doctrinal iconoclasm and subjugation of Arab pagans and thewiping out of paganism in Arabia as a start to be part of its global

mission.

A historian cannot hide that but instead inserts a lie by the way of

misstating things-

We know from the Qur'an that Lat, Uzza and Manat were the threepre-Islamic goddesses widely worshipped,

12and the destruction of

their shrines and images, it was said, had been ordered by the

Prophet Mohammad.


10/58

Not said but very much in display at standard records of Traditions

of hadith as well his Biography Al Siraj.

Two were destroyed, but Manat was believed to have been

secreted away to Gujarat and installed in a place of worship.

Not two but all but two.

It had 360 icons which were broken that day, save the Black Stone

and a corner stone that is still there.

We might be in need of an attempt to understand it in any other

feature of this consequent iconoclasm in Expansionist Islamic

Imperialism and its fall out from this inception of Islam itself, only if

it fails to fully explain or contradicts this self declared and evident

centrality.

Instead of first showing even the need to look elsewhere or any

contradiction to this Islamic script, a whole tribe of evangelists of

Islamic apologia grandly launch a wild goose chase and a smoky gun

trail.

First there is little by the way of evidence to make out a case

neither regarding this commonality or against it in supposed

differences between Pre-Islamic Arab paganism and heathenism on

one hand and Pagan Hinduism.

Islam had successfully destroyed the textual scripts that would

explain Arab pantheon and snuffed out pre-Islamic paganism as a

living faith.


11/58

The mission to India is very historically and theologically an

extension of this Holy mission- to destroy idolatry and paganism.

Invasion of Mohamad of Ghazni as the sword arm of this Islamic

mission fulfilment has nothing unclear as to make it difficult tocomprehend.

Unless, we must listen to a special pleader on its behalf.

In other words, there is nothing Islamic about it, keeping in mind

Mohammad also killed nominally equal amounts of fellow

Muslims as he was a sectarian.

BUT his legitimacy also derives from the fact that he was a Sunni and

he attacked Isma'ilis and Shias whom the Sunnis regarded as

heretics.14

It was ironic that the Isma'ilis attacked the temple of

Multan and were, in turn, attacked by Mahmud in the 11th century

and their mosque was shut down. The fear of the heretic was due to

the popularity of heresies against orthodox Islam and political

hostility to the Caliphate in the previous couple of centuries, none of

which would be surprising given that Islam in these areas was a

relatively new religion.

Mahmud is said to have desecrated their places of worship at Multan

and Mansura. His claims to having killed 50,000 kafirs (infidels) is

matched by similar claims to his having killed 50,000 Muslim heretics.

The figure appears to be notional. Mahmud's attacks on the Hindus

and on the Shias and Isma'ilis was a religious crusade against theinfidel and the heretic.

Now since Mohamad attacked Ismaili mosques at Multan, again

there was nothing Islamic about his attack at Somnath ?


12/58

However, this would fail to explain why Ismailis as Muslims too

attacked and destroyed the temple at Multan?

Well, that is the irony!

Can you make any sense of this spin?

So far so good, the attempt here is to give an escape hook to Gazni

which being that he killed Muslims as well, though-

The figure appears to be notional.

And adding -

Mahmud's attacks on the Hindus and on the Shias and Isma'ilis was

a religious crusade against the infidel and the heretic.

In other words, the Jihad mandated to Muslims against Infidels and

especially Idolators.

The inter-sectarian attacks on Shias and Ismailis are a reflection of

his orthodoxy and view that they too were infidels.

If we are to rest the case with this and the very simple and repeated

self attested Islamic Iconoclasts, then we would be wrong according

to this spin doctor of History.

For we are told-

But interestingly, there were also the places and peoples involved in

the highly profitable horse trade with the Arabs and the Gulf. Both

the Muslim heretics of Multan and the Hindu traders of Somanatha

had substantial commercial investments. Is it possible then that

Mahmud, in addition to religious iconoclasm, was also trying to


13/58

terminate the import of horses into India via Sind and Gujarat?This

would have curtailed the Arab monopoly over the trade. Given the

fact that there was a competitive horse trade with Afghanistan

through north-western India, which was crucial to the wealth of the

state of Ghazni, Mahmud may well have been combiningiconoclasm with trying to obtain a commercial advantage.

15

This is in the full fact of the Mohammads own words, and the

generations of after his feats who heaped praise upon him as a

breaker of idols and slayer of infidel Hindus and a Ghazi or a warrior

of Islam, a fantastic exploration in hypothesis?

One would like to ask if there are any dearth for facts about

Mohammads razing down to fully explain the sacking of Pagan

temples by an avowed Iconoclast?

Does the mandates of Islam contradict what he had done with the

idols there or the temple of idolatry?

Does the high figures of casualty be surprising when Islamic doctrines

did not let Dhimmi status to idolaters but either forced conversion or

the sword and fire?

That we must hesitate to take figures there except as nominal?

Here is how it goes, with Sherlock Homes-

First drop in a prelude of some hearsay and not at all pertinent

misrepresentation of facts like WE are also told that the local rajas -

the Chudasamas, Abhiras, Yadhavas and others - attacked the

pilgrims and looted them of their donations intended for the

Somanatha temple. In addition, there was heavy piracy in the


14/58

coastal areas indulged in by the local Chavda rajas and a variety of

sea brigands referred to as the Bawarij.9As with many areas

generating wealth in earlier times, this part of Gujarat was also

subject to unrest and the Chaulukya administration spent much

time and energy policing attacks on pilgrims and traders

Which should make us correctly understand that Somnath would

have perhaps been sacked and plundered by these local Rajas and

Hindus if it not it had been Mohammad.

Otherwise why was there heavy policing? Why was there records of

history that mentions piracy in the coast and protection to pilgrims?

The problem here is that here Sherlock Holmes is investigating after

the Crime had been rewarded as a feat accompli throughout Islamic

world and Mohammad hailed as an ace Iconoclast with a prize catch.

So what is the attempt about?

In the subsequent and multiple accounts - and there are many in each

century - the contradictions and exaggerations increase. There is no

agreement on the form of the image. Some say that it is a lingam,others reverse this and describe it as anthropomorphic - a human

form.16

But even with this there is no consistency as to whether it is

a female Manat or a male Shiva.There seems to have been almosta

lingering wish that it might be Manat.Was the icon, if identified

with Manat, more important perhaps to Muslim sentiment?

Here is the deal- delivered.

Mohammad was impelled by his religious impulse and mandated

duty even though it is not possible that the idol there could have

anything to do with the idol of Manat at Mecca shrine.

He had destroyed it as per the wishes of the prophets wishes to

have manatbe destroyed, and that since Arabs mistook the idol at


15/58

Somnath to be that of Manath that could have escaped their hands,

he was duty bound to go after it!

Poor Mohamad of Ghazni how could he be blamed for such-

Was the icon, if identified with Manat, more important perhaps to

Muslim sentiment?

It simply stun the mind when we try to understand this sophistry

where this historian attempts to interpret and spin theories about

something that is Islamic iconoclasm and massacre of infidels

especially idolaters which are meticulously documented by Islamic

court historians, and take us on a garden walk.

Just to justify him through his own eyes and views as an islamist and

in spite of his stated reasons for carrying out these acts of vandalism

and plunder.

The crown of which is destroying manat to be seen as important to

Muslim sentiments!

Not destroying all Paganism and Idolatry which is nothing restricted

to Manath, nor of any special importance.

If the idol resembled Al-Uzza instead, or any others of their

pantheon, it would have assumed no special significance or deserved

no less the very same terrible fate.

We are being asked to understand Iconoclasm sympathetically as

important to muslim sentimentsand the destruction at Somnath

and its Icon as incurring some added strength in sentiments, that are

important to Muslims.


16/58

As a list of priorities in Iconoclasm Manath being suspected to have

evaded the deal, and this sentiment gets fortiofied at the resmblence

of the icon at Somnath.

While even Pre Islamic idolatry gets some sympathy, as a lingering

wish that it might be Manat !

What wish they had upon sighting the thousand icons of shrines

elsewhere that were turned to rubble needs more investigations

perhaps!

Could it be that we must take The Book of idols and match them andexplain such Muslim sentiments?

Little here is the Hindu sentiments given any consideration but that

is the aim of this drivel and nonsensical antics of logical fallacies.

To foster and justify and try to project even where it cannot be

denied this plain and simple Islamic Iconoclasm as anything but other

than what it is.

The Prophets directive is to wipe out all idolatry and spare no

idolaters.

In fact that was his last wish.

Yet, since such a directive is in the Koran and the Traditions and has

to be covered up as a mandated Islamic doctrine of its Imperialist

expansionism, it has to be overlooked and all sorts of beside thepoint issues like historical references to existence of common place

things like robbery and piracy and banditry, the mistaken belief of

Arabs that Manat the idol they had already destroyed at Mecca and

rumoured widely to have been given sanctuary at Somnath, and the

anthropomorphic features of the idol there at Somnath that cannot


17/58

be then an anionic Lingam, and therefore help more flights of fantasy

along-

THE anthropomorphic form encourages stories of the nose being

knocked off and the piercing of the belly from which jewels pouredforth.

17Fantasising on the wealth of the temples evoked a vision of

immense opulence, and this has led a modern historian to describing

the Turkish invasions as a "gold-rush".18

One account states that the

image contained twenty man of jewels - one man weighing several

kilograms; another, that a gold chain weighing two hundred man

kept the image in place. Yet another describes the icon as made of

iron with a magnet placed above it, so that it would be suspended in

space, an awesome sight for the worshipper.

19

The age of the templeis taken further and further back in time until it is described as 30,000

years old. One wonders if Somanatha was not becoming something

of a fantasy in such accounts.

A surrealistic colossus that is, a fantasia if we only attempt to close

our eyes and dream along with Romilla Thopar and imagine

ourselves as Mohamad Ghazni.

Barani states that his writing is intended to educate Muslim rulers intheir duties towards Islam.

20For him, religion and kingship are twins

and the ruler needs to know the religious ideals of kingship if he

claims to be ruling on behalf of God. Sultans must protect Islam

through the shar'ia and destroy both Muslim heretics and infidels.

Mahmud is said to be the ideal ruler because he did both.

Now he gets to be more humane and just and a role model!

Destroying both heretics and infidels are to be understood as heroic

feats of this ideal ruler.

Isami composes what he regards as an epic poem on the Muslim

rulers of India, on the lines of the famous Persian poet Firdausi's

earlier epic on the Persian kings, the Shah-nama. Isami argues that


18/58

kingship descended from God, first to the pre-Islamic rulers of Persia -

in which he includes Alexander of Macedon and the Sassanid kings -

and subsequently to the Sultans of India, with Mahmud establishing

Muslim rule in India.21

Interestingly the Arabs, who had both a

political and economic presence in the subcontinent prior toMahmud, hardly figure in this history. That there is a difference of

perception in these narratives is important to a historical assessment

and requires further investigation.

Sherlock Holmes again!

Alexander the great is very much a part of Prophet Mohamads

Traditions. Nothing un-Islamic about him or the Sassanids being

figuring in there, as Mohammad claims even Abraham the Hebrew

Patriarch himself and Moses as being a Muslims.

The silence about Arabs also wont surprise or intrigue even the

graduate level student of Arab History, least to say it should be so

mysterious to this award vested Historian and an icon.

Mohameds invasion takes place in the back drop of the tussle

between the Umayyad and the Hashemite and Abbasid Shiite tusslefor the supremacy at Medina and Damascus.

This has nothing to do with Firdausis avoidance of Arabs and their

history being left out. The whole Traditions of Hadiths have this

feature with both cutting out the other and depicting them in a

negative light.

To draw a connecting line from this most basic and elementary

historical fact to Somnath and spin a tale assuming airs of mystery

and detective investigation is just hilarious and most incompetent.

But the joke is on us-


19/58

The appropriation of the pre-Islamic Persian rulers for purposes of

legitimacy suggests that there may have been an element of doubt

about the accepted role models of Muslim rulers. The Sultans in

India were not only ruling a society substantially of non-Muslims, but

even those who had converted to Islam were in large part following

the customary practices of their erstwhile caste, which were often not

in conformity with the shar'ia. Is there then a hint of an underlying

uncertainty, of a lack of confidence, in the insistence on taking

Islamic rule back to Mahmud, a champion of the Islamic world? Can

we say that these accounts had converted the event itself at

Somanatha into what some today would call an icon?

This is just the most staggering invention since the falling apple.

This is connecting a motive to legitimise through what would seem

incongruous pre-Islamic only to those who are unfamiliar with

Muslim traditions deeming many ancient historical figures and even

Alexander as a Muslim as an attempt to dissociate with Islam itself

and then in the same breath the tracing of Historic roots to

Mohammad the iconoclast as a compensation to demonstrate their

Islamic zeal and coming with a Sherlock Holmes discovery of the

culprit that the whole Temple that looked Phantasmal had now

started to evaporate like a mirage as an invented Icon!

Is this a Historian or a Mythologist or a someone who had smoked

pot?

Just a little more of this and we would be seeing the same visions-

LET me turn now to the Jaina texts of this period. These, not

unexpectedly, associated a different set of concerns with the event,


20/58

or else they ignore it. The 11th century Jaina poet from the Paramara

court in Malwa, Dhanapala, a contemporary of Mahmud, briefly

mentions Mahmud's campaign in Gujarat and his raids on various

places, including Somanatha.22

He comments, however, at much

greater length of Mahmud's inability to damage the icons ofMahavira in Jaina temples for, as he puts it, snakes cannot swallow

Garuda nor can stars dim the light of the sun. This for him is proof

of the superior power of the Jaina images as compared to the

Shaiva.

That is not bravado of a sectarian but must be taken literally even if s

no student of history would take such allegories and not the least a

reputed historian.

In the early 12th century, another Jaina next informs us that the

Chaulukya king, angered by the rakshasas, the daityas and the asuras

who were destroying temples and disturbing the rishis and

brahmanas, campaigned against them.23

One expects the list to

include the Turushkas (as the Turks were called) but instead

mention is made of the local rajas. The king is said to have made apilgrimage to Somanatha and found that the temple was old and

disintegrating. He is said to have stated that it was a disgrace that

the local rajas were plundering the pilgrims to Somanatha but

could not keep the temple in good repair. This is the same king who

built at Cambay a mosque which was later destroyed in a campaign

against the Chaulukyas of Gujarat by the Paramaras of Malwa. But

the Paramara king also looted the Jaina and other temples built

under the patronage of the Chaulukyas.24

It would seem that when

the temple was seen as a statement of power, it could become a

target of attack, irrespective of religious affiliations.


21/58

Notice it is he is said to have, so later it could be retracted, that local

Rajas were plundering the pilgrims to Somnath but could not keep

the upkeep.

That is obvious that its about Taxes and not a plunder of the temple,but this must be conflated, with

This is the same king who built at Cambay a mosque which was

later destroyed in a campaign against the Chaulukyas of Gujarat by

the Paramaras of Malwa. But the Paramara king also looted the

Jaina and other temples built under the patronage of the

Chaulukyas

There is no further question raised about the instance of a Hindu

king who built a Mosque and why Mohamd the Ghazni nor the

successive waves of invaders any of them built any temples?

Paramars had been seen here as sparing neither that lone mosquenor many Jain temples.

Implying Hindus have also been iconoclastic and at once-

It would seem that when the temple was seen as a statement of

power, it could become a target of attack, irrespective of religious

affiliations.

So much of our head gets cleared with such smoky stuff.

SOME suggestion of an anguish over what may be indirect references

to the raids of Mahmud come from quite other Jaina sources and

interestingly these relate to the merchant community. In an


22/58

anthology of stories, one story refers to the merchant Javadi who

quickly makes a fortune in trade and then goes in search of a Jaina

icon which had been taken away to the land called Gajjana.26

This is

clearly Ghazna. The ruler of Gajjana was a Yavana - a term by now

used for those coming from the West. The Yavana ruler was easilywon over by the wealth presented to him by Javadi. He allowed

Javadi to search for the icon and, when it was found, gave him

permission to take it back. Not only that but the Yavana worshipped

the icon prior to its departure. The second part of the narrative deals

with the vicissitudes of having the icon installed in Gujarat, but that is

another story.

Note the historian is a meticulous recorder of Jain Mythology and

next to come perhaps would be the Jataka Tales.

Gajja the yavan become Ghazni.

Its very clearshe says.

While proper Court chronicler of Ghazni Mohammad records the

infamous statement of decline of offer of Ghazni to the Brahmins

and Hindus who went with tons of Gold in equal measure to the icon

that he had taken to be traded and given back.

His famous refrain being- Iam not trader ofbootbut the breaker of

boot

The butbeing the Arab term for all Icons, since the Buddhists were

the first they would meet upon their way to devastating shrines

Eastwards.

The Jain Boots had no special appeals to them any more than

Buddhist boots or Hindus which they would encounter and fall upon

later.


23/58

But look here how a Historian takes us in a Hallucination of Mythical

texts and urging us to ignore and forget these Historical chronicles.

The real recorded words of Ghazni are not helpful, but this is clearly

Gazni, this Gajja in Jain Mytholgy!

The Jaina sources therefore underline their own ideology. Jaina

temples survive, Shaiva temples get destroyed. Shiva has abandoned

his icons unlike Mahavira who still resides in his icons and protects

them.Attacks are to be expected in the Kaliyuga since it is an age of

evil. Icons will be broken but wealthy Jaina merchants will restore

the temples and the icons will, invariably and miraculously, mend

themselves.

What is lost however even in this mythology by the historian is the

strong harmony and mutual sympathy.

No calls to destroy the others shrines and icons, nor slay them as

infidels and establish the rule of their godling.

In the 12th century the Chaulukya king, Kumarapala, issues an

inscription. He appoints a governor to protect Somanatha and the

protection is against the piracy and the looting of the local rajas.27

A

century later, the Chaulkyas are again protecting the site, this time

from attacks by the Malwa rajas.28

The regular complaint about local

rajas looting pilgrims at Somanatha becomes a continuing refrain in

many inscriptions.

All this trouble to make a case of Hindu iconoclasm and still we are

waiting to see a spectacle similar to Mohammads razing of somnath.


24/58

But the historian gives us to smoking more pipe and now comes the

real heady stuff-

In 1169, an inscription records the appointment of the chief priest of

the Somanatha temple, Bhava Brihaspati.29

He claims to have comefrom Kannauj, from a family of Pashupata Shaiva brahmanas and, as

the inscriptions show, initiated a succession of powerful priests at the

Somanatha temple. He states that he was sent by Shiva himself to

rehabilitate the temple. This was required because it was an old

structure, much neglected by the officers and because temples in

any case deteriorate in the Kaliyuga. Bhava Brihaspati claims that it

was he who persuaded Kumarapala to replace the older wooden

temple with a stone temple.

AGAIN no mention is made of the raidofMahmud.

Was this out of embarrassment that a powerful icon of Shiva had

been desecrated?Or was the looting of a temple not such an

extraordinary event? The Turko-Persian chronicles may well have

been indulging in exaggeration.Yet the looting of the pilgrims by the

local rajas is repeatedly mentioned. Was Kumarapala's renovation

both an act of veneration for Shiva and a seeking of legitimation?Was this, in a sense, an inversion of Mahmud seeking legitimation

through raiding the temple?Are these then counter-points of

legitimation in viewing the past?

Thats grand Inquisition and the historian seems enthused and even

in need of physical restraints.

The voluminous Islamic chroniclers are to be swept away- as

exaggerations!

The absence of mention of earlier Ghazni sacking in this inscription of

1169 alone has to be taken out of the debris of the temple.


25/58

The more certain documents of Ghaznis court chroniclers and their

meticulous records are all to be cast away as worthless, and we must

pursue our search for solving this mystery by asking why indeed did

he fails to mention the destruction.

Since that must have been kumarapala who appoints Bhava

Brihaspati the chief priest, to construct the Stone temple upon a

wooden structure, why is the Ghazni sacking not mentioned?

So it must have not only never happened, as we read in detail in

Ghaznis chronicles but also that if it really happened it must have

been mentioned like the Rajas looting the pilgrims which gets many

times mentioned.

This is taking the Inscription date as certain about its date and the

characters Kuamara; and Bhava Brihaspat are contemporaries and

not titular names of earlier kings and legendary Priests.

Again the argument is from absence of mention in the record here

than any positive mention to the contrary related the sacking.

If scores of Persian chronicles date wise are to be discarded and

could provide no clue to events, then how could just that mentioning

there assuming it repeats events as in Persian Chronicles are to be

taken as not exaggerated? Or of no importance?

Here its not even the equal weightier given to any positive evidence

contradicting Persian chronicle but the absence of the event in one

inscription and the presence of the Taxation of Rajas dereliction of

duties of Temple protection as Plunder of pilgrims as though these

Rajas were swashing swords against fellow Hindus and sacking Hindu

temples is being made out.


26/58

In a War crimes tribunal, Mohammad the Ghazni could have no

better Counsel to represent his case, even if had done a mistake of

confession and approvers to his crimes.

In 1264, a long legal document was issued in the form of aninscription with both a Sanskrit and an Arabic version and concerns

the acquisition of land and the building of a mosque by a trader from

Hormuz.30

The Sanskrit version begins with the usual formulaic

symbol - the siddham - and continues with invoking Vishvanatha, a

name for Shiva. But there is also a suggestion that it was a

rendering into Sanskrit of Allah, the Lord of the Universe.

Whose suggestion?

We are told that Khoja Nuruddin Feruz, the son of Khoja Abu

Ibrahim of Hormuz, a commander of a ship, and evidently a

respected trader - as his title Khoja/Khwaja would indicate -

acquired land in Mahajanapali on the outskirts of the town of

Somanatha to build a mosque, which is referred to as a

dharmasthana. The land was acquired from the local raja, Sri Chada,

son of Nanasimha, and reference is also made to the governor of

Kathiawar, Maladeva, and the Chaulukya-Vaghela king, Arjunadeva.

Is the mosque referred as dharmasthana? Or is the land indicated as

a holy place of charitable nature?

THE acquisition of this land has the approval of two local bodies, the

panchakula and the association of the jamatha. The panchakulas

were powerful administrative and local committees, well-established

during this period, consisting ofrecognised authorities such as

priests, officers, merchants and local dignitaries. This particularpanchakula was headed by purohita Virabhadra, the Shaiva

Pashupata acharya most likely of the Somanatha temple, and

among its members was the merchant Abhayasimha.

Why it should be most likely?


27/58

From other inscriptions it would seem that Virabhadra was related

to Bhava Brihaspati in a line of succession.

Why it would seem that way? How would it if it were merely a titular

name and not a proper name?

The witnesses to his agreement of granting land for the building of

the mosque are mentioned by name and described as the "the big

men". They were the thakuras, ranakas, rajas and merchants, many

from the Mahajanapali. Some of these dignitaries were functionaries

of the estates of the Somanatha and other temples. The land given

for the mosque in Mahajanapali was part of these estates.

THE other committee endorsing the agreement was the jamatha,

consisting of ship-owners, artisans, sailors and religious teachers,

probably from Hormuz. Also mentioned are the oil-millers, masons

and Musalmana horse-handlers, all referred to by what appear to

be occupational or caste names, such as chunakara and ghamchika.

Were these local converts to Islam? Since the jamatha was to

ensure the income from these endowments for the maintenance of

the mosque, it was necessary to indicate its membership.

The inscription lists the endowments for the mosque. These

included two large measures of land which were part of the temple

property from adjoining temples situated in Somanatha-pattana,

land from a matha, income from two shops in the vicinity, and an

oil-mill.The measures of land were bought from the purohita and

the chief priests of the temples and the sales were attested by the

men of rank. The shops and the oil-mill were purchased from the

local people.

So far nothing amiss except the gullible Hindus who had let land to

the building of a Mosque quite generously and the close proximity of

the major Temple.


28/58

But they deserve no such praise-

Did the local people make a distinction between the Arab andWest

Asian traders on the one hand, often referred to as Tajika, and the

Turks or Turushkas on the other? And were the former acceptableand the Turks much less so?

Thats quite a breathtaking sweep of imagination?

There were Tujika and the Turuskas and between them the Caste

discrimination should have come isnt t?

Even if the land was given for a Mohamedan mosque and an amiable

spirit of settlement is carefully not failed to be mentioned?

Communal harmony is not the case here we must appreciate in

Hindus letting this land for a mosque to be built upon what this

historian also mentions as Temple lands, but the hypothetical

difference between Tajika and Turuska to which terms we must

assign Caste discriminatory meaning of terms.

Clearly they were not all homogenised and identified as Muslims, as

we would do today. Should we not sift the reactions to the event by

examining the responses of particular social groups and situations?

That is after they had given land to construct the mosque to these

Jamma of Tjika who we are asked to understand as local converts

which should not to be questioned, and then presumed as real, and

then go on to sift the reactions to the event by examining the

responses of particular groups and situations?

Well we think we must, unless we miss an opportunity to infuse

some Marxist Class struggle and caste conflict and merchants and

local traders, and interesting such characters to write a drama.


29/58

But this no Drama Script we are writing but the rewrite of History

based on conjectures with close eyes, after we have agreed to burn

volumes of historical records of Persian scribes.

Hormuz was crucial to the horse trade, therefore Nuruddin was

welcomed.Did the profits of trade overrule other considerations?

Were the temples and their administrators also investing in horse

trading and making handsome profits, even if the parties they were

trading with were Muslims and therefore of the same religion as

Mahmud?

So in this very interesting Play we have Merchants of Venice at the

Somnath temple. What next maybe Hamlet?

In the 15th century, a number of short inscriptions from Gujarat refer

to battles against the Turks. One very moving inscription in Sanskrit

comes from Somanatha itself.

31

Although written in Sanskrit, itbegins with the Islamic formulaic blessing, bismillah rahman-i-rahim.

It gives details of the family of the Vohara/Bohra Farid and we know

that the Bohras were of Arab descent. We are told that the town of

Somanatha was attacked by the Turushkas, the Turks, and Vohara

Farid who was the son of Vohara Muhammad, joined in the defence

of the town, fighting against the Turushkas on behalf of the local

ruler Brahmadeva. Farid was killed and the inscription is a

memorial to him.

This again is no surprise that even Brahmins must embrace Islam

among the captives as even in Mecca after the destruction of the

icons at Kaaba, almost all priests and Quereish embraced Islam.


30/58

Would they then not be writing in Arabic still in Meccan dialect,

now that they are Muslims, and about how they had fought

alongside the Pagans resisting the attack?

Abu Sufiyan an idolater was one of the arch rivals of ProphetMohammad, and converted to Islam only after the fall of Kaaba.

But one of his grandsons became a famous Kalifa and his

descendants became the Umayyad dynasty of Caliphate.

What is so fishy about this that a historian must ferret it out as

some forensic piece of criminal investigation?

Here is why-

It would seem from these sources that the aftermath of the raid of

Mahmud on the temple of Somanatha took the form of varying

perceptions of the event, and different from what we have assumed.

There are no simplistic explanations that would emerge from any or

all of these narratives. How then have we arrived today at the rather

simplistic historical theory that the raid of Mahmud created a trauma

in the Hindu consciousness which has been at the root of Hindu-

Muslim relations ever since?Or to put it in the words of K. M.Munshi: "For a thousand years Mahmud's destruction of the shrine

has been burnt into the collective sub-conscious of the (Hindu) race

as an unforgettable national disaster."32

INTERESTINGLY, what appears to be the earliest mention of a 'Hindu

trauma' in connection with Mahmud's raid on Somanatha comes

from the debate in the House of Commons in London in 1843 on thequestion of the gates of the Somanatha temple.

33In 1842, Lord

Ellenborough issued his famous 'Proclamation of the Gates' in which

he ordered the British army in Afghanistan to return via Ghazni and

bring back to India the sandalwood gates from the tomb of Mahmud.

These were believed to have been looted by Mahmud from


31/58

Somanatha. It was claimed that the intention was to return what was

looted from India, an act which would symbolise British control over

Afghanistan despite their poor showing in the Anglo-Afghan wars. It

was also presented as an attempt to reverse Indian subjugation to

Afghanistan in the pre-British period. Was this an appeal to Hindusentiment, as some maintained?

Like this historians appeal to Muslim sentiment?

Going to much spin of yarns and trouble none so far seems to

suppress a laugh?

While the British are seen catering to Hindu sentiments, why must

we not see this whole tiring display of unscientific Historiography sofar nothing but what this historian projects as base motives to every

one concerned except the Muslims?

Who as this joke goes, never denied what they did and quite openly

and for ages took pride in what they did as Ghazis of Islam?

Why should the folk lore be taken as any less seriously than all these

assumptions of motives and very flimsy grounds of Jain jataka tale

like mythologies over Persian court records of event?

Would then that be also not aimed at avoiding the other obvious

Hindu storyline?

Where is then any objectivity here that a historian shouldnt loose

and with it any credibility?

The Proclamation raised a storm in the House of Commons andbecame a major issue in the cross-fire between the Government and

the Opposition. The question was asked whether Ellenborough was

catering to religious prejudices by appeasing the Hindus or was he

appealing to national sympathies. It was defended by those who

maintained that the gates were a 'national trophy' and not a


32/58

religious icon. In this connection, the request of Ranjit Singh, the

ruler of the Punjab, to the king of Afghanistan, Shah Shujah, for the

return of the gates, was quoted.

Is that not a valid retort, since he was a Sikh and that request shouldbe naturally seen in line with such requests of national treasures and

cions?

But on examining the letter making this request, it was discovered

that Ranjit Singh had confused the Somanatha temple with the

Jagannatha temple. It was also argued that no historian mentions

the gates in the various accounts of Mahmud's raid, therefore the

story of the gates could only be an invention of folk tradition .

How could that confusion occur?

Unless Mohammad Ghazni had sacked both these Temples?

And why is this not mentioned by this historian simply this way- since

Mohammad Ghazni sacked not just Somnath but also other such

famous temples as per his own Persian scribes, there is no need to

go for a fishing trip?

The historians referred to were Gibbon, who wrote on the Roman

empire, Firdausi and Sa'adi, both Persian poets, and Firishta. The last

of these was the only one who, in the 17th century, had written on

Indian history...

A world historian Gibbon now goes out the window, and Saadi too

must have written about India and so his mentioning mustnt be ofany value. In other words he isnt a specialist on India.

While Jain tales and a Gajja who worships the icon and gives it back

for money contradicting historical records is real history.


33/58

Title deeds with Tarjuks and Turuks show Marxist class conflict and

struggle happen and Somnath priests doing business and capitalist

cabal shows up.

Firishta was well-known because AlexanderDow had translated hishistory into English in the late-18th century. Firishta's account of

the sack of Somanatha was as fanciful as the earlier accounts, with

obvious exaggerations such as the huge size of the idol and the

quantity of jewels that poured out when Mahmud pierced its belly.

Members of the House of Commons were using their perceptions of

Indian history as ammunition in their own political and party

hostilities

So we must rewrite world history and Arab history as well, because

Prophet Mohammad is on record that the idols when they were

broken at Kaaba also behaved like living beings, many spoke and

many pleaded and begged with Ali they even appeared in person,

and hence allfanciful tales.

The vandalism of Kaaba shrine however cannot be questioned

without serious repercussions like this.

Also this historian will be standing discredited if this logic is applied

to Arab history.

Those critical of Ellenborough were fearful of the consequences: they

saw the fetching of the gates as supporting a native religion and that

too the monstrous Linga-ism as they called it; and they felt that its

political consequences would be violent indignation among the

Mohammadans. Those supporting Ellenborough in the House of

Commons argued equally vehemently that he was removing the

feeling of degradation from the minds of the Hindus. It would "...

relieve that country, which had been overrun by the Mohammadan


34/58

conqueror, from the painful feelings which had been rankling

amongst the people for nearly a thousand years." And that, "... the

memory of the gates (has been) preserved by the Hindus as a painful

memorial of the most devastating invasions that had ever desolated

Hindustan."

Not any different from Leftist position and the Right wing regarding

Ayodhya.

From this point on, the arguments of the debate in the House of

Commons come to be reflected in the writing on Somanatha.

Mahmud's raid was made the central point in Hindu-Muslimrelations. K.M. Munshi led the demand for the restoration of the

Somanatha temple. His obsession with restoring the glories of Hindu

history began in a general way with his writing historical novels,

inspired by reading Walter Scott. But the deeper imprint came from

Bankim Chandra Chatterji's Anandamatha, as is evident from his

novel, Jaya Somanatha, published in 1927. And as one historian, R. C.

Majumdar, puts it, Bankim Chandra's nationalism was Hindu rather

than Indian.

"This is made crystal clear from his other writingswhich contain passionate outbursts against the subjugation of India

by the Muslims."34

Munshi was concerned with restoring the Hindu

Aryan glory of the pre-Islamic past. Muslim rule was viewed as the

major disjuncture in Indian history. Munshi's comments often echo

the statements made in the House of Commons debate as is evident

from his book, Somanatha: The Shrine Eternal.

While Mohammad Ghazni is asked to be understood with rapture of

divining his possible motivations and Islamic impulses where did this

go?


35/58

What was natural for the invader mustnt be for the native who had

borne and suffered the onslaught of this invasion and its

subjugation?

But then, sympathy refuses to well up here.

On the rebuilding of the Somanatha temple in 1951, Munshi, by then

a Minister of the central government, had this to say: "... the

collective subconscious of India today is happier with the scheme of

the reconstruction of Somanatha, sponsored by the Government of

India, than with many other things we have done or are doing."

Nehru objected strongly to the Government of India being associated

with the project and insisted on its being restored as a private

venture.36

That the President of India, Rajendra Prasad was to

perform the consecration ceremony was unacceptable to him. This

introduces a further dimension to the reading of the event,

involving the secular credentials of society and state.

The societys credentials would suffer as well the state by associating

with the Hindus who had lost their edifice on the eve of the invasion,

but not this historiography that seeks specious reasonings that

attempts to rescue Mohammad ghazni in spite of the Islamic

records?

We continue to see such situations as a binary projection of Hindu

and Muslim. Yet what should be evident from the sources which I

have discussed is thatthere are multiple groups with varying


36/58

agendas involved in the way in which the event and Somanatha are

represented.There are differentiations in the attitudes of the

Persian chronicles towards the Arabs and the Turks.Within the

Persian sources, the earlierfantasy of Manatgradually gives way to

a more political concern with the legitimacy of Islamic rule in India

through the Sultans. Was there, on the part of the Persian

chroniclers, a deliberate playing down of the Arab intervention in

India?Andif this be so, can it be traced to the confrontations

between the Persians and the Arabs in the early history of Islam?

The hostility between the Bohras and the Turks, technically both

Muslims, may have also been part of this confrontation since the

Bohras were of Arab descent and probably saw themselves as among

the settled communities of Gujarat and saw the Turks as invaders

The Persian downplaying Arabs now comes appropriately!

While that didnt explain the absence of their registering the Arab

role in India earlier, because it was convenient to remember that

there.

The folk lore of Manat being at Somnath among Arabs is another

gem. While similar folk lore of the gates of Temple taken to Ghazni is

trash.

The conflict between Persians and Arabs must explain the harsh and

bitter narrative in Islamic Chronicles.

While the harsher firsthand experience of native Hindus and the

Islamic zealot and Imperialist iconoclast and the conflict imposed

must not be taken as suffice to explain. Unless it is to be denied and

all these other very same grounds admitted to just blur our vision.


37/58

Is the historian here not down playing, by which perhaps is meant

at times exaggerating zealous iconoclasm to legitimise Islamic

credentials, and sometimes projecting a negative barbaric image,

that is attributed to Persian Arab schism and divide-

Simply put, is this historian here not demonstrated enough of

exertion to extenuate the Muslim history from the past history of its

iconoclasm, vandalism and massacre conducted against the Hindus?

Biographies and histories from Jaina authors, discussing matters

pertaining to the royal court and to the religion of the elite, focus on

attempts to show Mahavira in a better light than Shiva. The

agenda becomes that of the competing rivalry between the Jainas

and the Shaivas.

Do we need such Sectarian and philosophical differences and

antagonism to explain Islamic iconoclasm and Jihad?

Where is the need to look there when Islam is avowedly iconoclastic

with its self declared mission to uproot idolatry?

Unless the historian wants to shift the focus from the elephant in the

room?

But the sources which focus on a different social group, that ofthe

Jaina merchants, seem to be conciliatory towards the confrontation

with Mahmud, perhaps because the trading community would have

suffered heavy disruptions in periods of raids and campaigns.

This is gained afiter the quotes earlier of Jana texts speaking about

kaliyuga as an age of evil when iconoclasm will come, and Shiva

Temples will suffer?


38/58

How can the Jain merchants collude or welcome the evil mentioned?

Where is the conciliation lacking here?

When Hindus had been shown in this historians own case, as gladly

giving even a proximate Temple land for Mosque construction?

Does Islamic orthodoxy allow such same conciliation to let Hindu

Temples or Jain temples to spring next to or on Islamic waqf?

FROM the Veraval inscription of 1264, cooperation in the building of

the mosque came from a range of social groups, from the most

orthodox ritual specialists to those wielding secular authority andfrom the highest property holders to those with lesser property.

Interestingly, the members of the jamatha were Muslims from

Hormuz and it would seem that local Muslim participation was

largely from occupations at the lower end of the social scale. As

such, their responsibility for the maintenance of the mosque would

have required the goodwill of the Somanatha elite. Did the elite see

themselves as patrons of a new kind of control over property?

So the only good those Hindu elite do in this grant and deed of land

to Jamma is to obtain control over the property.

Which was to begin with, was their own temple land?

What is the need for giving them this land and allowing them to build

a mosque and then it takes no rocket science that artisans and

masons would be from lower strata and Jamma would be funded by

Hormuz traders, in all of which there is nothing very unusual but

somehow it leads to a class conflict that has the Somnath elite as the

top dog and the Hormuz Muslims whom this historian takes great

care to emphasise as encompassing all the classes are locked up in a

Marxist Drama.


39/58

These relationships were not determined by the general category

of what have been called Hindu interests and Muslim interests.

They varied in accordance with more particular interests and these

drew on identities of ethnicity, religious sectarianism and social

status.

That rather seems a premise and a presumption needed by what

follows.

I have tried to show howeach set of narratives turns the focus of

what Somanatha symbolises: the occasionfor the projection of an

iconoclast and champion of Islam; the assertion of the superiority of

Jainism over Shaivism; the inequities of the Kaliyuga; the centrality

of the profits of trade subordinating other considerations; colonial

perceptions of Indian society as having always been an antagonistic

duality of Hindu and Muslim; Hindu nationalism and the restoration

of a particular view of the past, contesting the secularising of

modern Indian society.But these are not discrete foci. Even when

juxtaposed, a pattern emerges: a pattern which requires that theunderstanding of the event should be historically contextual, multi-

faceted, and aware of the ideological structures implicit in the

narratives.

Note the line- the centrality of the profits of trade subordinating

other considerations

This is Marxist dogma and not real objective insight at History.

I would argue thatMahmud of Ghazni's raid on the Somanatha

temple did not create a dichotomy, because each of the many facets

involved in the perception of the event, consciously or subconsciously,

was enveloped in a multiplicity of other contexts as well. These direct

our attention to varying representations, both overt and hidden,


40/58

and lead us to explore the statements implicit in these

representations. The assessment of these facets may provide us

with more sensitive insights into our past.

Which is another way of putting the Marxist bottom line-

Of denial of any Islamic invasion at all, which should be for hundred

other isolated motivations while trying to prove this case the Islamist

imperialism gets resurrected and given a clean chit and fresh go at its

destructive objectives of Islamic Domination.

There is no dichotomy here, but the simple case of Islamic

expansionism and theocracy and the real history of its story in India.

And the denial that suits the Marxist ideologue who shares as such

its objectives.

While the piper walks us to the doom and asks us to have a smoke

while we can see all kinds of visions from inside our heads instead of

straight reads of history.


41/58

The issue of claims to Hindu centres of worship that were destroyed

during the Islamic conquest and rule had been deliberately made to

drag on as a protracted bone of contention between Hindus and the

Muslim community.

This in spite of the totally different psychological significance of

places of worship between the two creeds-

While Islamic doctrine regards its own places of worship as not

bestowed with any sacredness or hollowness on its own but as

merely a place of congregation of the faithful, and in fact the moreorthodox and dogmatic sects discourages the vesting of sacredness

by itself as separate from the congregational significance and the

most extreme among these altogether launch terror strikes at such

shrines that attract such mistaken practices of sacredness.

On the other hand, the native Hindu creed are typical of all pagan

cults world over, consider a special sacredness to the ground and the

site, and the divinity itself rooted upon the ground.

This sense of the sacred is quite independent of congregation and

the structural entity.

The Muslims would have therefore not at all resented this

reconciliation, since handing over of Mosques or masjids that are


42/58

historically put up during the Islamic rule by aliens as a psychological

intimidation and discouragement of native spirituality, do not pose

any fundamental difficulty as Islamic theology does not grant or

bestow nor encourage places and shrines to be looked up as holy in

its own right.

There are only three such places of worship that are exceptions to its

rule, and even the one at Jerusalem has very debatable significance

based on interpretation than scriptural or historical links.

The supreme difficulty would only be in foregoing the origin of such

Iconoclasm and erection of these Mosques over pagan shrines, as a

part of its Imperial Mission to uproot idolatry all over the world.

This is something very theoretical and tied to Imperial practices and

has absolutely no relevance to the individual or even communal

sphere of Islamic communities.

Unless, the individual is persuaded and the community asked to

revive the Imperial mission as half done and still relevant for its

future.

This is the real inspiration behind the babri masjid mobilisation.

The medieval outlook of an iconoclastic cult revived as an unfinished

mission of Islamic Imperialism.

Not so much as a fight about its claim over a sacred structure, for the

Pagans were willing to replace it with a grander structure elsewhere,

but over the site per se seen as a Conquest claim assuming theImperial impulse and invent the sacredness around that unfinished

mission itself as though very central and threatening to its existence

and identity.


43/58

Which is much more serious difficulty as an issue for the natives than

the former?

If Muslims were to consider them incapable to renounce the Imperial

Mission iconoclastic impulse of Islam, then the pagan Hindus wouldhave to rightly defend against this revival of imperialism and defence

of its iconoclasm.

In this, further more they could not be blamed for inventing for

themselves the revival of ancient Indias golden age of Guptas and

Mauryas and the mission of Asoka.

So far the Hindus had been on the defence about this as natives

asking back the places of worship from the descendants of the

converts among them who had obtained both by force.

But if Muslims were to see no wrong in harbouring medieval Imperial

impulses and drive as central to their existential identity, then Hindus

would sooner or later reflect this course of exchange in reinventing

the ancient Imperial mission of aryanising the world.

The Empire of Asoka being the sole exception to otherwise Secular

Polity of native Indian history, that not just adopted Buddhism as its

empires faith and resorted to aggressive evangelism, the present

Hindus might for the first time in Hindu history emulate Asoka with

Hinduism as its State creed and embark upon a similar drive.

This might seem very farfetched to eyes that view just the present,

going by the universal and long psychological averseness of Hindus to

Theocracy.

But world history had shown more dramatic reversals of Psychology

of peoples, the recent example of the Jews being the best.


44/58

As long as the present course remains as the set of choices between

Muslims and the sophists, to be regarding Hindus, thwarting

reconciliation of their mutual history, then historical forces are

bound to operate however slowly and imperceptibly till it altogether

makes the Hindus drop the now defensive stance and assume as the

logical response their own Imperial theme from the past.

This seems to be inevitable not so much because of some such

predilicted choice on the part of the Hindus, but more so by the

thrust and pressure of the forces of Islamic Imperialism that would

go unchecked and acquire momentum and compel a likewise

reaction and response.

We will not take up the history of one such sample that would be a

symbol of this whole issue and debate between two civilisations, as a

struggle between a native culture and its Imperial subjugators.

In this we shall test and see whether the native resistance had

survived or petered out, and whether such a native cultural identity

had ever gone without staking its claim.

Such a central whirlpool of time is obtained in the chronicles of the

Temple at Somnath.

A thousand years tale by turning of pages we shall see this spirit had

been only central and impossible to be displaced by the Imperial

quest.

And in all this there had been only a defensive stand and an appeal

to a grant of its right to exist.


45/58

The parallel contention of this right had been again around the

Imperial theological idea that cannot accommodate this claim of

natives without itself ceasing to be an expansive Imperialism.

So it is clear that the two contenders are unable to neither matchtheir Responses nor resolve the tangle of conflict.

Since it is more difficult to demand the Imperial creed to adjustment,

to the present global consensus of post colonialism and anti-

Imperialism, the mistaken sophist seeks vainly to work around this by

persuading the native to give up his nationalist Resistance.

All the while, be forgetting lessons of history that this had never

been managed even by the full weight and power of Islamic

Imperialism upon pagan India.

The British Imperial experience had been no less a failure.

So the lament of the sophist is very ridiculous that Hindu

Fundamentalism had made a comeback.

It should surprise us that it took such a long time.

But that is neither the whole story nor worry.

The shock of this misadventure by secular sophists would be

something not yet witnessed.

Its faint suggestions are there in the Empire of the Marathas and the

Raja of Sikhs Ranjit Singh.

But what they had put manifest are still, the attempt and surge of

historical forces that strain towards yet another past endeavour in

the Evangelist Theocratic Empire of Asoka and the Cholas- Emperors

of the South India who built and found colonies and the worlds

largest Temple City in Angkor Watt in Cambodia.


46/58

The Hindus were the first in bearing that white mans burden, long

before this was suggested to Queen Victoria by a director of the

parent company of the East India Company.

While these were quasi-Civilisation and unabashedly militarist-commercial exploits, the older Christian and Islamic theocracies were

faith driven expansionism though with the same objectives.

With the failure of Communism as a viable practical creed, all such

ambitions are closed to China.

While for India, this assumes a different significance.

Asokas expansionism was cultural and non coercive and put simplyevangelical but detached from the Militarist, political and

commercial objectives- for Silk route trade was already an ancient

feature during its occurrence and not a consequence.

The South Indian Empire of the Cholas however differs in all this, and

seems to be the first ever successful military and cultural colonialism

that precedes the founding of America, and differs from the latter

only in the full integration of the Rulers with the natives in a

syncretism outpost.

This has immense value for our study if we must try to derive its

implications.

A near approximate translation of all the central features of this

Cholas expansionism would be the evangelical conversion of Hindu

spirituality of America and Western Europe thereafter, and the fullincorporation of Hindus as its elite governs indistinguishable to the

new Order, and retaining its historical tradition of Indian enmity as

the centre of the spiritual cultural expanse.


47/58

Both as an Empire and a centre of influence, the political entity

remaining at India and an independent sphere of influence that even

exceeds its achievements like Khmer and Angkor Watt and the

spiritual influence readapted by major imperial seats such as the

Chinese, Mongols and Japanese.

Perhaps it is this that unnerves the Chinese to view India with more

fear than a hegemonic hostility.

The truth being none Political and rather cultural.

This is also the wiser attempts currently by the CCP to alleviate these

tensions through more spiritual dialogues that would play out these

currents without explosive surfacing and in this they know all too

well as their ancestors that they stand everything to gain- Buddhism

unlike Communism still has relevance and future, and they could

take a stand upon Buddha and gain more than lose with fractious

Marx and Mao that they had already wrapped up and thrown to the

garbage din.

In reading all this rather evident historical features, of civilisations,

the obsolete Marxian and Misso colonial sophist secularist runs

within him a pathetic paranoia and the reductionist vision of Hitlerite

Hindu Supremacy.

In a way he is right, in that in the drills and marches of the RSS, he

sees the Fascist counterpart in Germany and both being centred on

Aryan identity.

But he lacks insight into this Aryan Supremacy, since the thoroughly

Christianised Germany had by herself been vigorously seeking to

assert its Expansionism borrowing the Aryan identity through her

pagan Nordic links, while India retains the very same as its founts as


48/58

a living faith system based on Indo European Aryanism of the Rig

Vedas.

For her it is neither a revival nor remoulding of disparate faiths such

as Judo Christian around the Wotan Aryan but a natural reflexive selfassertion.

Why Germany took the militarist Expansionist again is more clearly

and nearer to her Protestant Prussian and Catholic Franco-Saxon that

revived the Papal Expansionism and Crusader sprit.

Lacking such a tradition, the mere dresses and drills of the RSS lacks

neither the continuity, nor are the Hindus been the persecutors with

anti-Semitism central to doctrinal institution of nationhood, like

Martin Luthers Germany towards the Jews.

At best they can be viewed with suspicion as neo-Zionist.

And it is here that they for once come anywhere near accuracy, in

that just as the long persecuted and nearly driven to extinction Jewsshould build a mighty National edifice of Israel, the Hindus sharing a

similar persecution under Muslim and Colonial rule could be seen in

the RSS towards building a similar entity.

But that is not the end of it.

Actually the Aryan Spiritualisation being the very term used

repeatedly by Buddha and the evangelical motto and drive of Asokas

Empire, and that again being the self assumed titles of the Khmer

and Lankan colonies, it could be blamed towards working towards

something more than the Zionist state which has no such aspirations

being a non-proselytising and in-turned entity historically and by self

definition of identities.


49/58

The RSS therefore could very well be the Empire builder not so much

like Germany needing to send her panzers down the frozen European

steppe, but more like Vijay crossing of the seas and building of his

own cultural colony at Cambodia, and Asokas sending of the

Buddhist evangelists.

There seems neither real need nor role for a Militarist effort here.

The very large Diaspora and the increasing tribe of its gurus and the

popularity all point towards a task very elegantly underway that

needs none of supposed RSS militarism to aid or hasten.

Hitlers Germany had a mere less than 1 % Jews that called for such

an atrocious build up, and here alone the RSS could be seen as a

build up against Indias Muslims but there ends comparison-

Muslim population is nothing trivial being 15% and which again

cannot be seen in isolation to the Islamic States that saddle it, and

India itself being the home of largest population of Muslims

anywhere in the world, second only to Indonesia and which again

has no intimidating proximity to another hostile entity.

Thus we arrive at this in summary, that the Indian Empire is nothing

altogether neither new nor ambitious but a very historical entity that

has its own unique features centred on cultural evangelism and

colonialism.

Part of this having already been shown as manifested in its Diaspora

and its increasing role in the West and America, and its spiritual view

point of Universalism, introvert, non militant quietist identity had

become also the consensus of post Christian west, we then can turn

to look at China.

Where we find a Post Communist world where China has to retain

its identity in its nominal adherence and as a creedal remnant- with


50/58

absolutely no scope for expansionist influence save the militarist

hegemony where the payoff is certainly negative and comes at a

self injurious cost.

Hence it is more than certain that China by herself retraces her ownroots in an idealism that transcends the political sphere and helps

her surmount the hurdles to her sphere of influence through its

Buddhist past.

Either way that is Aryan Supremacy that goes by Buddhas own

terminology as supremely good as a cultural creed.

This would only aid in the successful cohabitation of two Imperial

entities, born by the immense economic and secondary military

growth and an unavoidable era of Indian Spiritual Thought and its

radiation worldwide.

This is however as much one would despise and wish ill to India, and

her creed, in avertable.

By instigating a collision course with historical forces that are natural

to its narratives, and against this process, we could only work

towards an unsuccessful challenge that would not only be met

successfully but precipitate needless strengthening of the militant

manifestations of the Indian identity and even force it to resort to its

Imperial Military impulses of self preservation.

In all this is prescribed to the Muslims by our sophists a sure selfdefeatist and self annihilating misadventure.

It is futile to retain ones own Imperial impulses and avoid

precipitating the reactions in the native Indian entity that is not

altogether devoid of similar Imperial traits.


51/58

Having said that, for the benefit of this misadventurist the Imperial

manifestation of Indian Spirituality is bound to surface since it

preceded the advent Islamic Imperialism and prior to that of all

others, regardless of this Islamic challenge.

If at all, this challenge of Islamic imperialism would only make this

arrival of a spiritual Indian Empire through the birth pangs of a

needless final conflict with militant Islam and Christianity, and go to

write the last chapters of their utter dissolution.

Let us now read the summary of Somnath Temples history by a

nationalist writer.

The article below is courtesy Infinity Foundation

Somnath - The Symbol ofNational Pride

Somnath - The Symbol of National Pride "By rising from its ashes

again, this temple of Somnath will proclaim to the world that no

man

and no power in the world can destroy that for which people have

boundless faith and love in their hearts... Today, our attempt is not

to rectify history. Our only aim is to proclaim anew our attachment

to the faith, convictions and to the values on which our religion has

rested since immemorial ages." Dr. Rajendra Prasad


52/58

The shrine of Somnath has rose like the phoenix from its ruins a

number of times.

The present shrine is the seventh temple built on the original site. A

reference of the presiding deity of the temple, Lord Someshwar isavailable in the Rig Veda.

It was also a sacred place in the days of the Mahabharat. It was

called Bhairavashwar in Satya Yug, Shravanikeshwar in Treta Yug and

Shrigaleshwar in Dwapur Yug.

The Prabhas Khanda in Skand Purana giving description of the Lingaof Somnath says that it is a Swayambhu Linga of great prowess, as

bright as the disc of Sun, surrounded by a serpent, of the size of the

egg of a hen, called Sparalinga and situated underground.

The first temple of Somnath can be said to have existed about the

beginning of the Christian era. The second temple replaced the firstone on the very site somewhere around 649 A.D. In 725 A.D.

Junayad, the Governor of Sind sent Arab armies and both Vallabhi,

the capital of Saurashtra and

Prabhas were destroyed in this onslaught.

The second temple was probably destroyed during this attack.Nagabhatta II, of the later Pratihara line of Kanauj, constructed the

third temple, a large structure of red sandstone sometime in 815

A.D. Zeal for Islam was the


53/58

dominant role of the tenth-century Turks, as of most new converts.

The great missionary creed of Mohammed, which to the Arabs and

Persians had become a familiar matter of routine, was a source of

fiery inspiration to the untutored men of the steppes. To spread the

faith by conquest doubled their natural zest for battle and endowed

them with the devoted valour of martyrs.

Lane Poole, author of Medieval India, has said that Mahommad of

Ghazni,

"who had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war

against the infidels of Hindustan"

could not rest from his idol-breaking campaign so long as the temple

of Somnath remained inviolate.

It was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his career,

undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan toAnhilwada on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the

famous temple.

Mahmud Ghazni attacked this temple in 1026 A.D. and after a week-

long resistance, captured it. When the soldiers scaled the walls with

ladders all they found inside were defenseless worshippers.

Fifty thousand devotees praying to the linga and weeping

passionately with hands clasped were massacred in cold blood. The

Shiva Linga, adorned with gems and precious stones was broken and

the temple burnt.

After the battle, Mahmud and his troops are described as ha

indian empire in the third millenium

Documents