What does desecration of religious places meant- understanding through Romila Thapar's book 'Somnath- many voices of history'

 Introduction:-

Romila thapar’s book ‘Somnath- many voices of history’ helps us to look towards the events of temple desecration from different perspectives instead of a popular narrative propagated by Colonial era historians, government and nationalist school of historians. Her book present before us varied sources composed during or after the lifetime of Mahmud of Ghazni, which broaden our perspectives about a temple and its functions which were wholly different from today’s time. It also presents before us the causes behind raids by different rulers of multiple origins and regions.

The review

The book helps us to understand the reason behind the raids on temples, importance of a temple as an institution, the kind of ecosystem a temple is or it develops because the roles which temples played during ancient or medieval times were very much different from today’s time. As many historians mentions about the methods of legitimation for an emperor or a dynasty’s rule, religious institutions like temples and mosques etc. played an important role which signifies political importance of them. Thus, Mahmud’s raid on Somnath is also considered as a way to sought acceptance in the world of Islam. Temples are religious institutions who had a hold and influence on society, and were nucleus of the Brahmin caste people who holds the highest position in society and since, had an authority. To get a hold on society and legitimize their rule and lineage rulers used them as a medium and because of it temples became a source of authority over the society and dynasty. Therefore, desecration of a temple means to challenge the reign of the king or de-stabilize the ruler’s authority, as we can see that destruction of a temple or any other religious institution is not new, there are many instances of it before and after Somnath were temples were sacked or harmed by Hindu rulers to boast upon their power and demarcate their victory, for example-‘In the 1460’s Kapilendra the founder of the Suryavamshi Gajapati dynasty in Orissa, sacked both Saiva and Vaishnava temples in the Kaveri delta in the course of wars of conquest in the Tamil country.’ (Richard Eaton, Temple desecration part-1, Frontline, 2000, pg-66); similarly, in 1579 when Golconda’s army led by Murahari Rao who was Marathi Brahmin, when campaigned south of Krishna river sacked the Ahobilam temple during his annexation of Qutb Shahi domains which was visited by Vijayanagar’s ruler Krishnadevaraya and presented it’s ruby-studded idol as war trophy to his sultan. In 1514 Krishnadevaraya looted the image of ‘Balakrishna’ from Udaygiri which he took back to his empire. Therefore, desecration of temples was not a new thing and Mahmud’s attack on Somnath was due to economic, diplomatic and iconoclastic factors which the author specifies in her book through different sources. As many sources in the book points out that Somnath city and temple both were prosperous due to trade and pilgrimage, which makes Gujrat an essential economic center. The ports of Veraval, Bharuch and Khambat were three major ports and the Somnath-Veraval port was a major port for people going to Zanj in East Africa and China. From here we can understand the commercial importance of Somnath.  The Arabs who came to India in 8^th century as invaders subsequently, settled down in the western region instead of further conquests and started trading with the merchants there which included Hindu and Jaina communities. They used to trade in horses, spices and textiles etc. and with passage of time trading relations between India and Arabia deepened. Since, the setting of Somnath is on a coast line we can assume that trade had been an important part of it. Both the trading communities also took various measures to strengthen their ties like in 14^th century a Jaina merchant named Jagadu had a mosque constructed for his trading partners from Hormuz. These merchants belonged to different sects of Islam i.e. the Bohras, Isma’ili, khojas, Sunni and Shia, and mingled with their Indian counterparts so much that according to an inscription from Somnath dating back to 1406 mentions that how a Bohra Muslim merchant’s son Farid helped the local ruler Brahmadeva in defending the town from Turkic invasions. This act also, can be considered as a way to strengthen relations. Another example of importance of trade comes from 12^th century where Muhammad Ghuri despite his political confrontations refrained from seizing property of a wealthy Hindu merchant named Wasa Abhira situated in Ghazni. This shows the suppleness in the nature of society. Romila Thapar also mentioned about two major subsistence activities on which Mahmud’s reign rested first, the steppe pastoralists and second, commercial exchange in oasis towns of Central Asia, Persia and Afghanistan. We also know that how a religious institution like temples creates an ecosystem around them which is called as ‘temple economy’ and Mesopotamian commercial temples are known examples of it; and Somnath is no other exception, author mentions in her book that donations to temples came in kind and dues on regular basis, and where these came from a large range of artisanal production, the temple would have had to have commercial outlets. It shows the inclusion of temples in market and trade which had provided livelihood to many people. Around the temple or any other institution presence of food courts and rest-rooms for pilgrims is usual because the devotees who visited came for pilgrimage from distant places needed these services. Ibn-Batutta when came to India in 14^th century during the reign of Muhammad -bin -Tughlaq mentions about the ‘Bazaars’ (market places) of Delhi and Daulatabad which were centers of culture, recreation and worship due to the presence of mosques along with, trade where rich merchants used to deal in jewels, horses etc. So, the encouragement of trade by temples makes them a commercial hub and as what the book says that temples also performed functions of a bank.

                                 From here we can assume that how trade evolving between Jaina and Hindu merchants with their Arab counterparts. The rise of Gujrat as an important trade center with huge amount of wealth makes it a probable region for raids.

                                 Richard Eaton in his article ‘Temple desecration’ points out that sometimes how some magnificent temples survived the raids due to their abandonment by royal patrons and thereby rendered politically unimportant. He gave example of Khajuraho which was renounced by their Chandela patrons due to which it survived from Turkish raids in 13^th century. This paradigm shows the importance of temples. But this was not the case with the Somnath temple was under regular patronage by Chalukya rulers from 6^th century to 12^th century who were Shaivites. Mularaja (founder of Chalukya dynasty) who is said to had build a small temple there dedicated to Shiva was a way for them to appropriate a new emerging in a cult and sought legitimation from their power.

                                 The Turko-Persian narratives mentioned in the book compares the idol at Somnath with a pre-Islamic goddess ‘Manat’ who according to some traditions was saved from the attack of Ali and shifted to somewhere else which some historians and poets like Zia ud -din barani, Farrukhi, Ferishta, Grdizi and Abdul Isami finds as Somnath but their narratives have some variations in them. Farrukhi who was the court poet of Mahmud interprets the word Somnath as ‘su-manat’ referring to goddess Manat. But these comparison of Somnath with Manat do not have any historical evidence, the aim behind this comparison was to legitimize mahmud’s act and raise it to political importance, to build his image as ‘harbinger of Islamic ideals’. A Sufi saint Farid al-din attar addresses Mahmud as an ideal Muslim ruler although he wished to specify himself as a hardline follower of Sunni sect evident from his acts like he attacked the city of Multan ruled by an Isma’ili ruler who refused to convert to Sunni sect which gave Mahmud a reason to attack him. Here through this he killed two birds in one shot, on one hand he puts a step forward in strengthening his place in Sunni sect and on other the booty collected increased his wealth. Another example of it is, that he used to attack the Shia’s and Isma’ili’s, desecrate their religious places in India and Persia categorizing them as heretics. He did all this to sought protection and legitimation from the Caliphs of Baghdad who were Sunni Muslims so, they could help him in securing his west Asian borders for this he regularly used to communicate them about his braveries. Thus, all of the Mahmud’s acts had political motives.

                                  On the other side we have Sanskrit inscriptions who do not accepts the event of desecration of temple and it’s idol by Mahmud’s raid but due to weathering of sea sprays. They mention about the renovation of temple and replacement of idol by Chalukya rulers and merchants. Inscriptional evidences provide us information about the disturbances caused by the Abhiras (lesser Rajput converts) who always plunder the pilgrims going to temple and looted the offerings intended for deity. An example of this came from the book where Kumarpala the Chalukya ruler appointed a governor Gumadeva to protect the pilgrims and temple from the Abhiras. An inscription dating back to c.1169 where Kumarpala appointed Bhava Brihaspati as chief priest who belonged to Pashupata sect of Shaivism. Author further mentions about the folklores relating to his birth, dedication to temple and destiny which was already decided. He is said to had persuaded the king to rehabilitate the temple.

                                  This example shows us the influence of the Brahmin caste on society and dynasty because at the end they were at the apex of the Varna hierarchy. This assertion also points towards various interpretations, asserting for religious legitimation for his rule, dependence of them on royal patronage and not let the temple politically unimportant and probably to the desecration of the temple because his appointment had been done after many years of raid. There is also a mention of an inscription from 1177 A.D. coinciding with Ghurid invasions stating about the patronage to the temple from a minister’s wife where she had replaced the image desecrated by a Turk and also provided grant for its daily worship. Dhanapala a court poet of Bhoja Parmara Malwa’s king briefly describes Mahmud’s campaign in Gujrat and a bare reference of desecration of temple’s idol. Another important source which talks about Somnath is Padmanabh’s ‘Kanhadadeprabandh’ which shows the importance of marriage alliance as a way to strengthen political ties and legitimizing the victory through symbolism. This marriage was between Ala al-din Khalji’s daughter, Piroja and Kanhadade’s son which gave Ala al-din access to Gujrat and Kanhadade legitimacy to his rule.

                                   Temple desecration also served as a way to give punishment to rulers and officials going against the state. For example- ‘In 1478, when a Bahamani garrison in Andhra Pradesh mutinied, murdered it’s governor, and entrusted the fort to Bhimraj Oriyya, who until that point had been a loyal Bahamani client, the sultan personally marched to the site and, after a six months siege, stormed the fort and destroyed the temple and built a mosque on the site.’ (Richard Eaton, temple desecration part II, Frontline, 2001, pg-74). Book also provides evidences of presence of Jaina Buddhist structures in the vicinity of Somnath, a 7^th century record of Buddhist monk and traveler Husan Tsang where he mentions about decline in number of Buddhist monasteries due to rise of heretic sects of Shaivism and Vaishnavism. The destruction of Jaina temples by Ajaydeva had been depicted symbolically as ‘he had uprooted the existing trees and planted the trees of Vedas.’ And he had also revoked the grants given to Jaina temples. This all shows the growing influence of Shaivism and its political necessity. At last we have the myth of stolen golden gates of Somnath temple by Lord Ellenborough, taken away by Mahmud as his trophy and which were claimed by the English government to had brought back from Afghanistan through a proclamation in 1840 by British Officer R.H. Kennedy. although his claim was not supported by any evidence but it gave nationalist school of historians another subject to propound the theory of Muslim rule tyranny on Hindus. It only had political motives to gather support of the majority community for the smooth functioning of their government.

                                   Thus, Romila thapar’s book present before us different views and objectives for desecration of temple not only by foreign invaders but also by regional polities and empires. It also helps us to broaden our view about the functions of a temple in medieval India.

Refrences:-

 1.Ahmad,Aziz,‘ Epic and Counter- Epic in Medieval India’ Journal of the American Oriental Society, Sep.-Dec., 1963, Vol.83, No.4 (Sep.-Dec.,1963) ,pp.470-476.

2.Davis, Richard, ’Images Overthrown’in Lives of Indian Images, Motilal Banarassi dass, New Delhi, 1997, 2015 ,  pp 88-113.

3.Eaton, Richard, ‘Temple Desecration in pre-modern India', ’Frontline', December 22, 2000 ,pp 62- 70.

4.Eaton, Richard, ‘Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States’, 'Frontline', January 5, 2001 ,pp70 -77.

5. Patel,Alka, ‘Architectural Histories Entwined: The Rudra-Mahalaya/ Congregational Mosque of Siddhpur, Gujarat’,Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Jun., 2004,Vol. 63, No.2 (Jun.,2004), pp.144-16.

6. Saers, Tamara, ‘Fortified Mathas and Fortress Mosques: The Transformation and Reuse of Hindu Monastic Sites in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, Archives of Asian Art, 2009, Vol.59 (2009),pp.7-31.