01-19-2009, 01:31 AM
PART THREE
Yvette Rosser
SAFFRON ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MEDIA
The âDelhi historiansâ wrote:
âDera Keshava Rai temple was built by Raja Bir Singh Deo Bundela during Jahangirâs reign. This large temple soon became extremely popular and acquired considerable wealth. Aurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah on the site. His actions might have been politically motivated as well, for at the time when the temple was destroyed he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura region. It should be remembered that many Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzebâs reign and even some new ones built. Indeed, what is really required is an investigation into the theory that both the Dera Keshava Rai temple and the Idgah were built on the site of a Buddhist monastery which appears to have been destroyed.â
Sita Ram Goelâs response goes into nineteen pages. I only reproduce a few of his counter arguments here, simply to show that spokesmen and women associated with âHindu Nationalistsâ are considered ill informed poseurs by an internationally renown scholar like Professor Romila Thapar, it may be assumed, also by her co-signatories on this letter and on dozens of press statements and pamphlets during the past two decades. These scholars are in fact, serious multilingual scholars, quite familiar with the historical record, able to draw from multiple sources, and adamant that their position is more grounded in historical facts.
First, Goel suggests, âleaving aside the Marxist accusation of âcommunalismâ against The Times of India that, âMarxists ⦠have a strong nose for smelling communalism in the faintest expression of Indian nationalismâ. He also writes, in retaliation against the pejorative pedantic approach,
ââ¦overlooking the ex-cathedra tone which characterises their pronouncements regarding interpretation of history. The tone comes quite easily to those who have enjoyed power and prestige for long and, therefore, begun to believe that they have a monopoly over truth and wisdom. We shall confine our examination to what they have stated as facts and what they claim to be the correct interpretations of those facts.â
First Goel takes up the âKesavadeva Tradition at Mathuraâ:
âIt is true that the temple of Kesavadeva which was destroyed and replaced with an Ãdgãh by Aurangzeb, was built by Bir Singh Deva Bundela in the reign of Jahãngîr. But he had not built it on a site of his own choosing. An age-old tradition30 had continued to identify the KaTrã mound (on which Aurangzebâs Ãdgãh stands at present) with the spot where KaMsa had imprisoned the parents of Srî KrishNa, and where the latter was born. The same tradition had also remembered with anguish that an earlier Kesavadeva temple which stood on this spot had been destroyed by an earlier Islamic iconoclast.â
Goel, continues, actually drawing from the works of Romila Thapar, who âhas herself testified to this tradition about Kesavadevaâ. Referring to âdescriptions of the Mathura region by Greek historiansâ, she had earlier written, âA possible connection could be suggested with Keshavadeva on the basis of this being an alternative name for KRSNa and there being archaeological evidence of a settlement at the site of Keshavadeva during the Mauryan period.â
Goel footnoted her reference31 and then added this comment in the footnote, that, if not âex-cathedraâ was at least tit for tat: âIt is her habit to speak with two tongues--one when she is in the midst of scholars who know the facts, and another when she functions as a professional Hindu-baiter.â
Goel sites studies by Dr. V.S. Agrawala. âCurator of the museum at Mathuraâ who âmakes the following observationsâ,
âMathurã on the Yamunã is famous as the birthplace of KRishNa. It was the seat of the Bhãgvata religion from about second century BC to fifth Century AD.â
Goel spends over three pages drawing corroborating information from epigraphy, textual references, oral narratives, and numerous archaeological studies to prove that âBrãhmanical shrines of Mathurã began to be built quite early as shown by the discovery of an epigraph [â¦] inscription [â¦] and lintelâ which testified that âa magnificent temple of VishNu was built at the site of KaTrã Kesavadevaâ.33 Continuing in this vein, drawing from germinal Sanskrit sources,34 Goel cites, âPatañjali35 [who] informs us of the existence of shrines dedicated of Rãma and Kesavaâ.36 He sites âthe earliest archaeological evidence to prove the tradition of the building of KRSNaâs shrineâ.37 Quoting copiously from previous research, the references continue for many pages, politicized needling of his Marxist âotherâ does not play into this segment of his exegesis.
Goel then takes up the topic of âWhy Aurangzeb Destroyed the Templeâ, responding to the comment by the Delhi Historians Group that âAurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah [for] âpolitical motivationsâ, [because] he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura regionâ. They then remind the readers that âmany Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzebâs reign and even some new ones builtâ.
Drawing from âcontemporary records to see how these explanations are wide of the markâ Goel brings out details from historical documents, âThe temple of Kesavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670 [to comply with] an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669â. On that date, according to Maâsîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, âThe Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.â
Quoting from the historian, Jadunath Sarkar, Goel cited âseveral sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb diedâ. Having referenced his comments, he goes in for the politicized kill, calling into question the reasoning abilities of the âMarxist historiansâ,
âNone of the instances cited by [Aurangzeb] make any reference whatsoever to booty or the political problem of rebellion. The sole motive that stands out in every case is religious zeal. Our Marxist professors will find it very hard, if not impossible, to discover economic and/or political motives for all these instances of temple destruction. The alibis that they have invented in defence of Aurangzebâs destruction of the Kesavadeva temple are, therefore, only plausible, if not downright fraudulent. It is difficult to believe that the learned professors did not know of Aurangzebâs firmãn dated April 9, 1669 and the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples that followed. If they did not, one wonders what sort of professors they are, and by what right they pronounce pontifically on this subject.â
Goel goes over âthe chronology of Hindu rebellions in the Mathura regionâ and concludes that, âthere was no Bundela uprising in 1670 when the Kesavadeva temple was destroyedâ. He explains, âThe first Bundela rebellion led by Jujhar Singh had been put down by December, 1635 in the reign of Shãh Jahãn [and] the second Bundela rebellion had ended with the suicide of Champat Rai in October, 1666â. Goel makes the wry observation that âthe third Bundela rebellion was still in the futureâ. He points out that the professors held that âthe Jat rebellion in the Mathura region [was] responsible for the destruction of the Kesvadeva templeâ However, Goel explains, âThe Jats had risen in revolt ⦠after and not before Aurangzeb issued his firmãn of April, 1969 ordering destruction of Hindu temples everywhereâ.
Bringing in the issue of forced conversions, Goel implicates Aurangzeb as a communal tyrant, who âin 1665⦠imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindu [and] in 1668⦠prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwaliâ. Concluding with a flourish of Hindu nationalist discourse, âThe Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu honour were no longer in a mood to take it lying downâ, Goel states emphatically that, âThe temples were destroyed in obedience to the imperial firmãn and for no other reasonâ. Goel continues page after page to taking up each of the controversial topics that had barely been broached in the Delhi historiansâ letter to The Times of India, including a discussion of the Ram Janma Bhumi movement, which was still six years away from the fateful day the Babri Masjid was demolished.
To conclude this rather lengthy excursion into the writings of the famous, some would say, infamous, âSanghâ historian, Sita Ram Goel points out the ironic nature of historical arguments that emerged as he engaged them. The beauty of the paradox, by which he deftly left his Marxist nemeses/historians having to backtrack in order not to alienate the majority of Indian citizens, may be one reason that they so rarely respond to such scholarship contesting their theories.
When scrutinized carefully, many ironies emerge from their theoretical positions. If questioned, sometimes they will admit that their historical assumptions may have been slanted to propound a certain political point of view, that such liberties were justified in order to combat communalism. Quite often when a rejoined from the non-leftists cuts through their arguments and frustrates a broad acceptance of their pronouncements on various topics they are unable or unwilling to respond, and they prefer to remain mute, resorting to name calling rather than confronting the paradoxes and inconsistencies that had been pointed out.
In this way, Goel attacks their economic theory which he claims they employ to hide the inherently iconoclastic nature of the Islamic invaders/rulers that was codified in the
âtheology of Islam systematised on the basis of the Quârãn and the Sunnah of the Prophet [that] lays down loud and clear that it is a pious act for Muslims to destroy the temples of the infidels and smash their idols. Conversion of infidel temples into mosques wherever practicable, is a part of the same doctrine [â¦.] The economic and political motives, invented by the Marxists, are not only far-fetched but also do not explain the destruction and/or conversion of numerous temples which contained no riches, and where no conspiracy could be conceived.â
This is the same contradiction that crops up when Pakistani historians discuss Indian Marxist and most Western historiographical treatments of the Islamic invasions. Islam-centric interpretations criticize Marxist scholars for saying that Ghaznavi and Ghori and the rest of the Turko-Afghani Islamic invaders, traveling into India on horseback, demolished temples and icons for economic gain, first, and only secondarily in the name of Islamâusing religion more as excuse than a crusade.
Yvette Rosser
SAFFRON ARCHEOLOGY AND THE MEDIA
The âDelhi historiansâ wrote:
âDera Keshava Rai temple was built by Raja Bir Singh Deo Bundela during Jahangirâs reign. This large temple soon became extremely popular and acquired considerable wealth. Aurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah on the site. His actions might have been politically motivated as well, for at the time when the temple was destroyed he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura region. It should be remembered that many Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzebâs reign and even some new ones built. Indeed, what is really required is an investigation into the theory that both the Dera Keshava Rai temple and the Idgah were built on the site of a Buddhist monastery which appears to have been destroyed.â
Sita Ram Goelâs response goes into nineteen pages. I only reproduce a few of his counter arguments here, simply to show that spokesmen and women associated with âHindu Nationalistsâ are considered ill informed poseurs by an internationally renown scholar like Professor Romila Thapar, it may be assumed, also by her co-signatories on this letter and on dozens of press statements and pamphlets during the past two decades. These scholars are in fact, serious multilingual scholars, quite familiar with the historical record, able to draw from multiple sources, and adamant that their position is more grounded in historical facts.
First, Goel suggests, âleaving aside the Marxist accusation of âcommunalismâ against The Times of India that, âMarxists ⦠have a strong nose for smelling communalism in the faintest expression of Indian nationalismâ. He also writes, in retaliation against the pejorative pedantic approach,
ââ¦overlooking the ex-cathedra tone which characterises their pronouncements regarding interpretation of history. The tone comes quite easily to those who have enjoyed power and prestige for long and, therefore, begun to believe that they have a monopoly over truth and wisdom. We shall confine our examination to what they have stated as facts and what they claim to be the correct interpretations of those facts.â
First Goel takes up the âKesavadeva Tradition at Mathuraâ:
âIt is true that the temple of Kesavadeva which was destroyed and replaced with an Ãdgãh by Aurangzeb, was built by Bir Singh Deva Bundela in the reign of Jahãngîr. But he had not built it on a site of his own choosing. An age-old tradition30 had continued to identify the KaTrã mound (on which Aurangzebâs Ãdgãh stands at present) with the spot where KaMsa had imprisoned the parents of Srî KrishNa, and where the latter was born. The same tradition had also remembered with anguish that an earlier Kesavadeva temple which stood on this spot had been destroyed by an earlier Islamic iconoclast.â
Goel, continues, actually drawing from the works of Romila Thapar, who âhas herself testified to this tradition about Kesavadevaâ. Referring to âdescriptions of the Mathura region by Greek historiansâ, she had earlier written, âA possible connection could be suggested with Keshavadeva on the basis of this being an alternative name for KRSNa and there being archaeological evidence of a settlement at the site of Keshavadeva during the Mauryan period.â
Goel footnoted her reference31 and then added this comment in the footnote, that, if not âex-cathedraâ was at least tit for tat: âIt is her habit to speak with two tongues--one when she is in the midst of scholars who know the facts, and another when she functions as a professional Hindu-baiter.â
Goel sites studies by Dr. V.S. Agrawala. âCurator of the museum at Mathuraâ who âmakes the following observationsâ,
âMathurã on the Yamunã is famous as the birthplace of KRishNa. It was the seat of the Bhãgvata religion from about second century BC to fifth Century AD.â
Goel spends over three pages drawing corroborating information from epigraphy, textual references, oral narratives, and numerous archaeological studies to prove that âBrãhmanical shrines of Mathurã began to be built quite early as shown by the discovery of an epigraph [â¦] inscription [â¦] and lintelâ which testified that âa magnificent temple of VishNu was built at the site of KaTrã Kesavadevaâ.33 Continuing in this vein, drawing from germinal Sanskrit sources,34 Goel cites, âPatañjali35 [who] informs us of the existence of shrines dedicated of Rãma and Kesavaâ.36 He sites âthe earliest archaeological evidence to prove the tradition of the building of KRSNaâs shrineâ.37 Quoting copiously from previous research, the references continue for many pages, politicized needling of his Marxist âotherâ does not play into this segment of his exegesis.
Goel then takes up the topic of âWhy Aurangzeb Destroyed the Templeâ, responding to the comment by the Delhi Historians Group that âAurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah [for] âpolitical motivationsâ, [because] he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura regionâ. They then remind the readers that âmany Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzebâs reign and even some new ones builtâ.
Drawing from âcontemporary records to see how these explanations are wide of the markâ Goel brings out details from historical documents, âThe temple of Kesavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670 [to comply with] an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669â. On that date, according to Maâsîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, âThe Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.â
Quoting from the historian, Jadunath Sarkar, Goel cited âseveral sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb diedâ. Having referenced his comments, he goes in for the politicized kill, calling into question the reasoning abilities of the âMarxist historiansâ,
âNone of the instances cited by [Aurangzeb] make any reference whatsoever to booty or the political problem of rebellion. The sole motive that stands out in every case is religious zeal. Our Marxist professors will find it very hard, if not impossible, to discover economic and/or political motives for all these instances of temple destruction. The alibis that they have invented in defence of Aurangzebâs destruction of the Kesavadeva temple are, therefore, only plausible, if not downright fraudulent. It is difficult to believe that the learned professors did not know of Aurangzebâs firmãn dated April 9, 1669 and the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples that followed. If they did not, one wonders what sort of professors they are, and by what right they pronounce pontifically on this subject.â
Goel goes over âthe chronology of Hindu rebellions in the Mathura regionâ and concludes that, âthere was no Bundela uprising in 1670 when the Kesavadeva temple was destroyedâ. He explains, âThe first Bundela rebellion led by Jujhar Singh had been put down by December, 1635 in the reign of Shãh Jahãn [and] the second Bundela rebellion had ended with the suicide of Champat Rai in October, 1666â. Goel makes the wry observation that âthe third Bundela rebellion was still in the futureâ. He points out that the professors held that âthe Jat rebellion in the Mathura region [was] responsible for the destruction of the Kesvadeva templeâ However, Goel explains, âThe Jats had risen in revolt ⦠after and not before Aurangzeb issued his firmãn of April, 1969 ordering destruction of Hindu temples everywhereâ.
Bringing in the issue of forced conversions, Goel implicates Aurangzeb as a communal tyrant, who âin 1665⦠imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindu [and] in 1668⦠prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwaliâ. Concluding with a flourish of Hindu nationalist discourse, âThe Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu honour were no longer in a mood to take it lying downâ, Goel states emphatically that, âThe temples were destroyed in obedience to the imperial firmãn and for no other reasonâ. Goel continues page after page to taking up each of the controversial topics that had barely been broached in the Delhi historiansâ letter to The Times of India, including a discussion of the Ram Janma Bhumi movement, which was still six years away from the fateful day the Babri Masjid was demolished.
To conclude this rather lengthy excursion into the writings of the famous, some would say, infamous, âSanghâ historian, Sita Ram Goel points out the ironic nature of historical arguments that emerged as he engaged them. The beauty of the paradox, by which he deftly left his Marxist nemeses/historians having to backtrack in order not to alienate the majority of Indian citizens, may be one reason that they so rarely respond to such scholarship contesting their theories.
When scrutinized carefully, many ironies emerge from their theoretical positions. If questioned, sometimes they will admit that their historical assumptions may have been slanted to propound a certain political point of view, that such liberties were justified in order to combat communalism. Quite often when a rejoined from the non-leftists cuts through their arguments and frustrates a broad acceptance of their pronouncements on various topics they are unable or unwilling to respond, and they prefer to remain mute, resorting to name calling rather than confronting the paradoxes and inconsistencies that had been pointed out.
In this way, Goel attacks their economic theory which he claims they employ to hide the inherently iconoclastic nature of the Islamic invaders/rulers that was codified in the
âtheology of Islam systematised on the basis of the Quârãn and the Sunnah of the Prophet [that] lays down loud and clear that it is a pious act for Muslims to destroy the temples of the infidels and smash their idols. Conversion of infidel temples into mosques wherever practicable, is a part of the same doctrine [â¦.] The economic and political motives, invented by the Marxists, are not only far-fetched but also do not explain the destruction and/or conversion of numerous temples which contained no riches, and where no conspiracy could be conceived.â
This is the same contradiction that crops up when Pakistani historians discuss Indian Marxist and most Western historiographical treatments of the Islamic invasions. Islam-centric interpretations criticize Marxist scholars for saying that Ghaznavi and Ghori and the rest of the Turko-Afghani Islamic invaders, traveling into India on horseback, demolished temples and icons for economic gain, first, and only secondarily in the name of Islamâusing religion more as excuse than a crusade.