Let us first see what different historians have to say about him.

Romila Thapar and Harbans Mukhiya -Lies and Un-substantiated Claims

Let us examine what Romila Thapar, A. L. Basham and Mukhiya have to say about iconoclasm by Hindu kings in Kashmir in their various articles. Views of Romila Thapar (whose knowledge and erudition of Sanskrit has always been a question mark) and Mukhiya whose Marxist leftist credentials have never been under question. So we kind of know which side of their bread is buttered. We will try and understand what Basham says about “Harsha the Iconoclast”. I am leaving Mukhiya alone but if need be, we will discuss his understanding of Harsha as well. I will also like the forum to read through this piece of extremely unbiased work by an American Student.

Puzzling Dimensions and Theoretical Knots in my Graduate School Research By Yvette Claire Rosser, M.A., Ph.D.

A few days later I met with Professor Romila Thapar and told her Prof. Mukhia had told me that she could provide information substantiate the hypothesis that Hindu rulers in the past had regularly destroyed temples in neighboring kingdoms. She said that she had not written anything but that Richard Eaton, an American scholar had recently written about this phenomenon in the introduction of his latest book. A few months later in the December 9 and 16 editions of Frontline published by the Leftist leaning editor N. Ram of The Hindu newspaper Dr. Eaton did publish a long article in two parts that discussed in detail the destruction and desecration of various temples during the Medieval Period. In his article, Eaton attempted to prove the assertion made by Dr. Mukhia's and his colleagues. However it was argued, Eaton failed to understand the difference in scale and magnitude between the few times Hindus raided the temples of other kings, and the much more wide spread and architecturally devastating attacks from Muslim armies.

I spoke with Professors Thapar and Mukhia and told them that I had heard about Harsha in Kashmir, recounted by the poet Kalhana in the 'Rajtarangini'. Harsha destroyed some temples and viharas, but most scholars consider Harsha's actions as exceptions to the usual practice. I pointed out that all of the literature indicates that Harsha was definitely only looting the temples for gold and riches, not desecrating them for ideological reasons. Though the result is the same, the temples were attacked, the intent and the scale of the destruction was very different. I also mentioned that there seems to have been one or two instances in Rajasthan and Gujarat where competing Maharajas raided temples in the neighboring kingdom and stole a murti (consecrated statue) which was considered to be endowed with powerful attributes. Then, bringing it back to his own kingdom, the king erected a new and more fabulous temple for the murti. This type of vandalism is a very different case; the murti was removed as a trophy not as an unholy thing to be desecrated. In the accounts that I had heard, the king who had looted the temple of his adversary did not throw the captured statue in the roadway or bury it into the staircase of a religious structure in his kingdom to be trod upon, but, interestingly, he built an even grander temple and had it installed with fanfare. Though the actions may have similarities, the motivations were very different.

I also suggested that these types of attacks on temples were not representative of usual practice, but in fact were very much the exception to the rule. Even after reading the Eaton article, I was not impressed by the meager evidence. Though the article very few verifiable examples offered to substantiate this often-repeated claim that Hindus were just a guilty as Muslims for breaking statues and destroying temples. I told suggested to several Leftist scholars in Indian that they should stop using that tact about the Hindus destroying temples, because hardly anyone in India really believes them. The evidence that Hindus were equally culpable for the destruction of temples and viharas, similar to the large scale destruction of Hindu temples by the various Muslim dynasties is simply untenable. Though the Marxist historians in India use the case of King Harsh in Kashmir, it is a rare historical exception, certainly not proof of a legacy of Hindu-driven carnage. Yet the historians who make these claims have failed to uncover any real evidence to substantiate their theory of Hindu aggression.

Let us move on to see what an independent Belgian Indologist Keonraad Elst has to say about claims made by Romila Thapar about Harsh’s iconoclasm. Thapar’s claims seem to have found favour with our Marxist friend for they fall in line with his pre-determined understanding of Kalhana.

Kalhana's first-hand testimony:
Now, let us look into the historical references cited by Romila Thapar. Of Banabhatta's Harshacharita, concerning Harsha of Kanauj (r.606-647), I have no copy available here, so I will keep that for another paper. Meanwhile, I have been able to consult both the Sanskrit original and the English translation of Kalhana's Rajatarangini, and that source provides a clinching testimony.

Harsha or Harshadeva of Kashmir (r.1089-1111) has been called the "Nero of Kashmir” and this "because of his cruelty" (S.B. Bhattacherje: Encyclopedia of Indian Events and Dates, Sterling Publ., Delhi 1995, p.A-20). He is described by Kalhana as having looted and desecrated most Hindu and Buddhist temples in Kashmir, partly through an office which he had created, viz. the "officer for despoiling god-temples". The general data on 11th-century Kashmir already militate against treating him as a typical Hindu king who did on purely Hindu grounds what Muslim kings also did, viz. to destroy the places of worship of rival religions. For, Kashmir had already been occupied by Masud Ghaznavi, son of Mahmud, in 1034, and Turkish troops were a permanent presence as mercenaries to the king.

Harsha was a fellow-traveller: not yet a full convert to Islam (he still ate pork, as per Rajatarangini 7:1149), but quite adapted to the Islamic ways, for "he ever fostered with money the Turks, who were his centurions" (7:1149). There was nothing Hindu about his iconoclasm, which targeted Hindu temples, as if a Muslim king were to demolish mosques rather than temples. All temples in his kingdom except four (enumerated in 7:1096-1098, two of them Buddhist) were damaged. This behaviour was so un-Hindu and so characteristically Islamic that Kalhana reports: "In the village, the town or in Srinagara there was not one temple which was not despoiled by the Turk king Harsha." (7:1095)

So there you have it: "the Turk king Harsha". Far from representing a separate Hindu tradition of iconoclasm, Harsha of Kashmir was a somewhat peculiar (viz. fellow-traveller) representative of the Islamic tradition of iconoclasm. Like Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, he despoiled and looted Hindu shrines, not non-Hindu ones. Influenced by the Muslims in his employ, he behaved like a Muslim.

And this is said explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at all, she must know that it doesn't support the claim she is making. Either she has just been bluffing; writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana.

A. L. Basham

Thankfully I did get to read Basham’s article titled ”Harsha of Kashmir and the Iconoclast Ascetics”

Basham writes and I quote "The dissolute king Harsha or Harshadeva (AD 1089-1101), when in financial straits, was advised by his evil counselor Lotsdhara to restore his fortunes by looting the temples and melting down the images of the gods”

It is evident from the sentence that it was financial problems (due to various vices) that prompted him to resort to doing what he did. Although Basham contradicts himself later in the same article by saying that the motive could not be financial alone but he attributes it to King enjoying acts of heresy. He even contradicts Aurel Stein’s explanation that King had been under the influence of turuska’s or (Muslims or outsiders) who in this case happened to be Muslims.

Even if we accept his explanation, there is nothing to prove that he destroyed temples to promote his faith or ideology (Hinduism) while the contrary can be proved by the following verse from Kalhana’s Rajatarangni Book 7 verse 1095:

"In the village, the town or in Srinagara there was not one temple which was not despoiled by the Turk king Harsha."

Kalhana calling him a turk (which was a synonym for Muslim/outsider/foreigner in Kalhana’s vocabulary. At many places Kalhana uses the term turuska’s to describe Muslims. We will discuss the word Turuska in detail when we analyse Our Marxist friend’s references to Rajatarangni.

Although I do not completely agree with either Basham or Keonard Elst, the reasons for which are the following:

1. Koenard Elst has got it wrong that Kashmir was conquered by Masud of Ghaznvi in 1034.There are no direct/indirect references or credible sources of history to prove that fact. I agree with Our Marxist friend when he says that Islamic rule was still some two centuries away.

2. Basham’s assertion that we should look to Ajivikas as Harsh’s source of his iconoclasm also seems to be a far fetched argument. Our Marxist friend himself concludes his argument by stating the following” Basham’s argument, albeit speculative, is less reliant on conjecture than the automatic identification of Turuska with Muslim that bedevils the other efforts to wrestle with the complexity of his reign that I have referred to above”

Irrespective of the arguments set forth by Romila Thapar, Basham, Elst and others it is conclusively proved in case of Harsha that although he did destroy temples and Viharas both but the reason was not to promote Hinduism or to subjugate Buddhism. What however can be argued is that he may be doing at the behest of whom Kalhana calls Turks (outsiders/foreigners who were Muslims in this case) what later Muslim kings did i.e., try and destroy the very root of Hinduism in Sarada Desha.

.....Part 1.....

....to be continued......Part 3.....

Printer-Friendly Version