02-14-2004, 02:50 AM
I got this from sulekha newshopper..
http://www.sulekha.com/hoppercomments.asp?cid=327007
society&the arts BOOKS
The Hidden Agenda
Ten reasons why Romila Thapar's meeting with Mahmud of Ghazni at Somnath is historic
By Chandan Mitra
Eminent historian Romila Thapar has an agenda and a central character in her authoritative monograph on the high-profile temple at Somnath in Gujarat. But it is an agenda that dare not take its name. And as for the central dramatis persona, she does not even mention him. After regretting the involvement of various Congress leaders, including India's first President Rajendra Prasad, in the rebuilding of the Somnath temple in 1951, Thapar refers to the most recent challenge to the "secular credentials of Indian society". That being the rath yatra organised by the VHP "in association with leaders of the BJP". L.K. Advani, who electrified India with his 1991 campaign and put his party on the road to power by making Hindutva a mainstream ideology, is not named throughout the narrative.
As a historical work, Thapar's scholarship is difficult to fault. She has meticulously studied various accounts of Mahmud of Ghazni's destruction of the temple in the 11th century. She has carried the narrative through to contemporary times, explaining the reasons for the resurgence of Hindu sentiment in the 19th century on this issue, leading to the temple's rebuilding after Independence. The volume, however, is so apparent in its purpose that it can only preach to the converted.
Considering the dwindling band of Marxists and their fellow-travellers in the arena of Indian history (since they don't control university appointments any more), it is doubtful how many would uncork champagne bottles at the publication of this scholastic endeavour. For the general public, the book makes laborious reading. Even secular fundamentalists from a non-history background would not be tempted to persevere through the Byzantine complexities of textual and interpretational rivalries among the Turks, Arabs, Chalukyas, Rajputs, Jainas, Shaivites, colonialists and the Hindu nationalists.
If a sahmat-type organisation were to sum up Thapar's treatise in a pamphlet, it would read something like this:
1. Undeniably, Mahmud of Ghazni raided a temple at Somnath and destroyed the idol there.
2. Although Persian sources extol his achievement and refer to the many infidels he killed, the purpose of the raid was economic, perhaps even iconoclastic, but not communal.
3. It is even possible that Mahmud believed the Somnath icon to be that of an early Arabic Goddess, Manat, for Somnath might even be a bastardisation of the Arabic su-manat. She was one of the goddesses Prophet Muhammed once said could be worshipped, but then retracted, claiming that the assertion was influenced by Satan. The reference to Manat is contained in the so-called Satanic Verses, subsequently deleted from the Quran.
4. Jaina and Sanskrit sources, on the other hand, make only cursory references to Mahmud's repeated raids. They don't repeat stories like Mahmud smashing the idol into smithereens and feeding Brahmins the lime that emerged from its ruins after breaking his promise not to destroy the lingam and confine himself only to loot.
This suggests Mahmud did not either divide society or permanently traumatise Hindus by his actions, as "communalists" have since led us to believe. It is immaterial that non-Muslims might have feared offending the ascendancy of Muslim political and military prowess and dared not question such actions. (Postscript: Alternatively, they may not have wanted to wallow in the angst of their humiliation at the hands of the Yavanas. But that would be a politically incorrect position to take.)
5. Hindu rulers frequently raided temples for booty and there was nothing extraordinary about Mahmud's or subsequent Muslim desecrations of Somnath. Anyway, Hindus were not Hindus (they still aren't), but a group of people divided by caste and subcaste residing in a place called India.
6. The Somnath temple was repeatedly renovated by various local rulers and the worship of the deity went on. This is contrary to suggestions that it had been converted into a mosque. The reconstructions were necessitated by sea spray that routinely damaged the structure. In other words, irrespective of Mahmud's raid, the temple would have fallen into disuse and, thus, its projection as a symbol of Islamic intolerance of Hindu beliefs is unwarranted.
7. The Arabs had settled in Sindh and Gujarat long before Mahmud's incursions and lived in perfect harmony with Hindus. A merchant from Hormuz in the Gulf, who engaged in the trade of horses, was actually given land by a Hindu ruler to construct a mosque close to Somnath. This suggests there was no antagonism between the two communities. In fact, Hindus explained the destruction of Somnath as an inevitability in a dark age called the Kaliyug.
8. The entire mischief began with governor-general Ellenborough who premeditatedly relied on Persian accounts of Hindu humiliation and decided to play them up to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims. His efforts were challenged by Macaulay who opposed "Linga-ism" and denounced support for obscurantism and idolatry. Ellenborough mistakenly sought to appease maharaja Ranjit Singh and brought back the gates of Somnath allegedly ferried away by Mahmud, but these turned out to be fakes.
9. In the 19th century, Hindu historians and politicians made a big deal of Mahmud's raids. While K.M. Munshi wrote emotion-charged novels, Bengali nationalists got unnecessarily worked up over these issues. Munshi was influenced by people like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Aurobindo and Vivekananda. (How terrible!)
10. Taking a cue from the likes of Munshi, Gujarati leaders, including Vallabhbhai Patel, supported the reconstruction of the temple after Independence much to the chagrin of the secular Nehru. This was an assertion of Hindu, not Indian, nationalism. It only helped the "communal" forces that plotted the fall of Babri Masjid at the "supposed" Ram Janmabhoomi by launching a mobilisation drive from Somnath.
I believe I have not unfairly summarised Thapar. She is entitled to her views and has taken pains to try and establish it through scholarship. Sadly for her, very few will believe her.
http://www.sulekha.com/hoppercomments.asp?cid=327007
society&the arts BOOKS
The Hidden Agenda
Ten reasons why Romila Thapar's meeting with Mahmud of Ghazni at Somnath is historic
By Chandan Mitra
Eminent historian Romila Thapar has an agenda and a central character in her authoritative monograph on the high-profile temple at Somnath in Gujarat. But it is an agenda that dare not take its name. And as for the central dramatis persona, she does not even mention him. After regretting the involvement of various Congress leaders, including India's first President Rajendra Prasad, in the rebuilding of the Somnath temple in 1951, Thapar refers to the most recent challenge to the "secular credentials of Indian society". That being the rath yatra organised by the VHP "in association with leaders of the BJP". L.K. Advani, who electrified India with his 1991 campaign and put his party on the road to power by making Hindutva a mainstream ideology, is not named throughout the narrative.
As a historical work, Thapar's scholarship is difficult to fault. She has meticulously studied various accounts of Mahmud of Ghazni's destruction of the temple in the 11th century. She has carried the narrative through to contemporary times, explaining the reasons for the resurgence of Hindu sentiment in the 19th century on this issue, leading to the temple's rebuilding after Independence. The volume, however, is so apparent in its purpose that it can only preach to the converted.
Considering the dwindling band of Marxists and their fellow-travellers in the arena of Indian history (since they don't control university appointments any more), it is doubtful how many would uncork champagne bottles at the publication of this scholastic endeavour. For the general public, the book makes laborious reading. Even secular fundamentalists from a non-history background would not be tempted to persevere through the Byzantine complexities of textual and interpretational rivalries among the Turks, Arabs, Chalukyas, Rajputs, Jainas, Shaivites, colonialists and the Hindu nationalists.
If a sahmat-type organisation were to sum up Thapar's treatise in a pamphlet, it would read something like this:
1. Undeniably, Mahmud of Ghazni raided a temple at Somnath and destroyed the idol there.
2. Although Persian sources extol his achievement and refer to the many infidels he killed, the purpose of the raid was economic, perhaps even iconoclastic, but not communal.
3. It is even possible that Mahmud believed the Somnath icon to be that of an early Arabic Goddess, Manat, for Somnath might even be a bastardisation of the Arabic su-manat. She was one of the goddesses Prophet Muhammed once said could be worshipped, but then retracted, claiming that the assertion was influenced by Satan. The reference to Manat is contained in the so-called Satanic Verses, subsequently deleted from the Quran.
4. Jaina and Sanskrit sources, on the other hand, make only cursory references to Mahmud's repeated raids. They don't repeat stories like Mahmud smashing the idol into smithereens and feeding Brahmins the lime that emerged from its ruins after breaking his promise not to destroy the lingam and confine himself only to loot.
This suggests Mahmud did not either divide society or permanently traumatise Hindus by his actions, as "communalists" have since led us to believe. It is immaterial that non-Muslims might have feared offending the ascendancy of Muslim political and military prowess and dared not question such actions. (Postscript: Alternatively, they may not have wanted to wallow in the angst of their humiliation at the hands of the Yavanas. But that would be a politically incorrect position to take.)
5. Hindu rulers frequently raided temples for booty and there was nothing extraordinary about Mahmud's or subsequent Muslim desecrations of Somnath. Anyway, Hindus were not Hindus (they still aren't), but a group of people divided by caste and subcaste residing in a place called India.
6. The Somnath temple was repeatedly renovated by various local rulers and the worship of the deity went on. This is contrary to suggestions that it had been converted into a mosque. The reconstructions were necessitated by sea spray that routinely damaged the structure. In other words, irrespective of Mahmud's raid, the temple would have fallen into disuse and, thus, its projection as a symbol of Islamic intolerance of Hindu beliefs is unwarranted.
7. The Arabs had settled in Sindh and Gujarat long before Mahmud's incursions and lived in perfect harmony with Hindus. A merchant from Hormuz in the Gulf, who engaged in the trade of horses, was actually given land by a Hindu ruler to construct a mosque close to Somnath. This suggests there was no antagonism between the two communities. In fact, Hindus explained the destruction of Somnath as an inevitability in a dark age called the Kaliyug.
8. The entire mischief began with governor-general Ellenborough who premeditatedly relied on Persian accounts of Hindu humiliation and decided to play them up to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims. His efforts were challenged by Macaulay who opposed "Linga-ism" and denounced support for obscurantism and idolatry. Ellenborough mistakenly sought to appease maharaja Ranjit Singh and brought back the gates of Somnath allegedly ferried away by Mahmud, but these turned out to be fakes.
9. In the 19th century, Hindu historians and politicians made a big deal of Mahmud's raids. While K.M. Munshi wrote emotion-charged novels, Bengali nationalists got unnecessarily worked up over these issues. Munshi was influenced by people like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Aurobindo and Vivekananda. (How terrible!)
10. Taking a cue from the likes of Munshi, Gujarati leaders, including Vallabhbhai Patel, supported the reconstruction of the temple after Independence much to the chagrin of the secular Nehru. This was an assertion of Hindu, not Indian, nationalism. It only helped the "communal" forces that plotted the fall of Babri Masjid at the "supposed" Ram Janmabhoomi by launching a mobilisation drive from Somnath.
I believe I have not unfairly summarised Thapar. She is entitled to her views and has taken pains to try and establish it through scholarship. Sadly for her, very few will believe her.