4. Harsha of
Kashmir, a Hindu iconoclast?
4.1. Claims of Hindu iconoclasm
Whenever the history
of the many thousands of temple destructions by Muslims is discussed, the
secularists invariably come up with the claim that Hindus have done much
the same thing to Buddhists, Jains and Animists. In particular, the
disappearance of Buddhism from India is frequently explained as the result
of “Brahminical onslaught”. Though extremely widespread by now, this
allegation is entirely untrue.
As for tribal
“animists”, numerous tribes have been gradually “sanskritized”, acculturated
into the Hindu mainstream, and this never required any break with their
worship of local Goddesses or sacred trees. The latter have easily
found a place in Hinduism, if need be in what Indologists call the “little
traditions” flourishing in the penumbra of the “great tradition”.
The only break sometimes required was in actual customs, most notably the
abjuring of cow-slaughter; but on the whole, there is an unmistakable continuity
between Hinduism and the various “animisms” of India’s tribes. Hinduism
itself is, after all, “animism transformed by metaphysics”, as aptly written
in the 1901 census report’s introduction discussing the infeasibility of
separating Hinduism from “animism”.
As for conflict
with the Jain and Buddhist sects, even what little evidence is cited turns
out to prove a rather different phenomenon on closer inspection.
The very few conflicts attested were generally started by the sectarian
Buddhists or Jains. This way, a few possible cases of Shaiva (esp.
Virashaiva) intolerance against Jains in South India turn out to be cases
of retaliation for Jain acts of intolerance, if the event was at all historical
to begin with. if there was a brief episode of mutual Shaiva-Jaina persecution,
it was at any rate not based on the religious injunctions of either system,
and therefore remained an ephemeral and atypical event.
allegation that Pushyamitra Sunga offered a reward for the heads of Buddhist
monks is a miraculous fable related exclusively in a hostile source and
contradicted by the finding of art historians that Pushyamitra was a generous
patron of Buddhist institutions. Of the Buddhist emperor Ashoka,
by contrast, it is known from Buddhist sources that he ordered the killing
of Jain monks. Moreover, the Vinaya Pitaka relates another
incident in which he ordered the killing of five hundred Buddhist monks.
He was angry because they rejected his interference in an internal dispute
in the Buddhist order. This event incidentally illustrates how even
the actual killing of Buddhists need not be motivated by an anti-Buddhist
Ashoka’s acts of intolerance remained exceptional events because they lacked
scriptural justification. Likewise, the alleged oppression of Brahmins
by the Buddhist Kushanas can never have been more than exceptional because
it had no solid scriptural basis; unlike Islamic iconoclasm and religious
persecution, which is firmly rooted in the normative example of Prophet
Mohammed. Judging from the evidence shown so far, I maintain that
Hindu persecutions of Buddhists have been approximately non-existent.
Buddhism was alive and flourishing in dozens of institutions including
international universities like Nalanda when Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants
appeared on the scene to destroy them all in the last decade of the 12th
To sum up: “1)
Buddhism was flourishing all over the country when the Islamic invaders
arrived on the scene; 2) both Buddhism and Jainism were being patronised
by kings whom the Marxists label as Hindus; 3) Buddhist monks fled to Nepal
and Tibet only after thousands of them were massacred and their monasteries
destroyed by the Islamic marauders; 4) Buddhism continued to flourish all
over Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka till attacked by the armies
of Islam in the fourteenth century; 5) Buddhism did
not survive the Islamic assault because, unlike Brahmanism and Jainism,
it was centred round monasteries and monks.”1
4.2. An “eminent historian” on
The matter should
have been put to rest there, but some Marxist polemicists just cannot let
go of what they had hoped would be a trump card in their struggle to death
against Hinduism. Next to the Pushyamitra fable,
the most popular “evidence” for Hindu persecutions of Buddhism is a passage
in Kalhana’s history of Kashmir where king Harsha is accused of looting
and desecrating temples.2 This
example is given by JNU emeritus professor of ancient history, Romila Thapar,
in a book and again in a letter written in reply to a query on Arun Shourie’s
revelations on the financial malversations and scholarly manipulations
by a group of secularist historians including herself.3
The letter found its way to internet discussion forums, and I reproduce
the relevant part here:
“As regards the
distortions of history, Shourie does not have the faintest idea about the
technical side of history-writing. His comments on [D.D.] Kosambi,
[D.N.] Jha and others are laughable - as indeed Indian historians are treating
him as a joke. Perhaps you should read the articles by H. Mukhia
in the Indian Express and S. Subramaniam in India Today.
Much of what Shourie writes can only be called garbage since he is quite
unaware that history is now a professional discipline and an untrained
person like himself, or like the others he quotes, such as S.R. Goel, do
not .understand how to use historical sources. He writes that I have
no evidence to say that Buddhists were persecuted by the Hindus.
Shourie of course does not know Sanskrit nor presumably does S.R.
Goel, otherwise they would look up my footnotes and see that I am quoting
from the texts of Banabhatta’s Harshacharita of the seventh century
A.D. and Kalhana’s Rajatarangini of the twelfth century A.D. Both
texts refer to such persecutions.”4
is aware that the Harsha of her first source (Harsha of Kanauj) is not
the same person as the one of her second source, the villain Harsha of
Kashmir. Let us at any rate take a closer look at this paragraph
by the “eminent historian”.
Most space of
her para and indeed her whole letter is devoted to attacks ad hominem,
much of it against Mr. Sita Ram Goel. In his book Hindu Temples,
What Happened to Them, vol.1 (Voice of India, Delhi 1990), Goel has
listed nearly two thousand mosques standing on the debris of demolished
Hindu temples. That is to say, nearly two thousand specific assertions
which satisfy Karl Popper’s criterion of scientific theories, viz. that
they should be falsifiable: it must be clear which test, if not
met, would decide on the wrongness of the assertion. In practice,
every secularist historian can go and unearth the story of each or any
of the mosques enumerated and prove that it was unrelated to any temple
demolition. But until today, not one member of the well-funded brigade
of secularist historians has taken the scholarly approach and investigated
any of Goel’s documented assertions. The general policy is to deny
his existence by keeping him unmentioned; most publications on the Ayodhya
affair have not even included his book in their bibliographies eventhough
it holds the key to the whole controversy.
the secularists cannot control their anger at Goel for having exposed and
refuted their propaganda, and then they do some shouting at him, as done
in this case by Romila Thapar. It is not true that Sita Ram Goel
is an “untrained person”, as she alleges. He has an MA in History
from Delhi University (1944). And he has actually practised history,
writing both original and secondary studies on Communism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Goel also happens
to be fluent in Sanskrit, quite unlike Romila Thapar, whose knowledge of
Sanskrit has subtly been tested by questioners during lectures and found
wanting. Having gone through Urdu-medium schooling and having lived
in Calcutta for many years, Mr. Goel is fluent in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali,
English and Sanskrit, and also reads Persian (a course of Persian being
a traditional part of Urdu-medium education). This is the perfect
linguistic equipment for a student of Indian history, and in that respect
at least, Goel can argue circles around the ill-equipped Professor. In
Hindu Temples, vol. 2, a book of which Goel sent Prof. Thapar a
copy, he has discussed the very testimonies she is invoking as proof (along
with her similarly haughty and status-oriented reply and his own comment
on it)5, - yet here she maintains that he has
not bothered to check her sources.
Note, at any rate,
Romila Thapar’s total reliance on arguments of authority and status.
No less than seven times does she denounce Shourie’s alleged incompetence:
Shourie has “not the faintest idea”, is “unaware”, “untrained”, and “does
not know”, and what he does is “laughable”, “a joke”, “garbage”.
But what exactly is wrong in his writing, we are not allowed to know.
If history is now a professional discipline, one couldn’t deduce it from
this Prof. Thapar’s letter, for its line of argument is part snobbery and
part medieval invocation of formal authority, and either way quite bereft
of the scientific approach.
Reliance on authority
and especially on academic titles is quite common in academic circles,
yet it is hardly proof of a scholarly mentality. Commoners often
attach great importance to titles (e.g., before I obtained my doctorate,
I was often embarrassed by lecture organizers introducing me as “Dr.” or
even “Prof.” Elst, because they could not imagine that someone could be
competent without such a title). But scholars actively involved in
research ought to, know from experience that many publications by title-carrying
people are useless, while conversely, a good deal of important research
is the fruit of the labour of so-called amateurs, or of established scholars
accredited only in a different field of expertise. Incidentally,
Prof. Thapar’s pronouncements on medieval history are also examples of
such transgression of specialism boundaries, as her field really is ancient
rather than medieval history.
At any rate, knowledge
of Sanskrit is not the issue, for the Râjatarangini is available
in English translation, as Romila Thapar certainly knows: Rajatarangini.
The Saga of the Kings of Kashmir, translated from Sanskrit by Ranjit
Sitaram Pandit, with a foreword by Jawaharlal Nehru, 1935. With
my limited knowledge of Sanskrit, I have laboriously checked the crucial
sentences against the Sanskrit text.6 I could
not find fault with the translation, and even if there were imperfections
in terms of grammar, style or vocabulary, we can be sure that there are
no distortions meant to please the Hindu nationalists, for the translator
was an outspoken Nehruvian. If I am not mistaken, he was the husband
of Nehru’s sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, whose defects did not include
a weakness for Hindutva.
4.3. An eminent brawl
Let us now check
Prof. Thapar’s references, starting with the review article on Shourie’s
book by S. Subramaniam: “History sheeter. Bullheaded Shourie makes
the left-right debate a brawl”. This article itself is quite a brawl:
“Shourie has nothing to say beyond repeating the Islamophobic tirade of
his henchman, the monomaniacal Sita Ram Goel who is referred to repeatedly
in the text as ‘indefatigable’ and even ‘intrepid’. Goel’s
stock in trade has been to reproduce ad nauseam the same extracts from
those colonial pillars Elliott and Dowson and that happy neo-colonialist
Sir Jadunath Sarkar.”7
It is, of course,
quite untrue that Shourie’s book is but a rehashing of earlier work by
Goel. As can be verified in the index of Shourie’s book, Goel’s findings
are discussed in it on p.99-100, p. 107-108, and p.253-254; that leaves
well over two hundred pages where Shourie does have something to say “beyond
repeating the tirade of his henchman”. Goel may be many things, but
certainly not “monomaniacal”. He has written a handful of novels
plus essays and studies on Communism, Greek philosophy, several aspects
of Christian doctrine and history, Secularism, Islam, and of course Hinduism.
on Islam are much richer than a mere catalogue of atrocities, and even
the catalogue of atrocities is drawn from many more sources than just Elliott
and Dowson. The latter’s alleged colonialist motives do not nullify
the accuracy of their translation of Muslim testimonies; it is not without
reason that their 8-volume study was called History of India as Told
by Its Own Historians. I am also not aware that Goel has repeated
certain quotations ad nauseam; to my knowledge, most Elliott &
Dowson and Jadunath Sarkar quotations appear only once in his collected
works. Finally, Goel’s position is not more “Islamophobic” than the
average book on World War 2 is “Naziphobic”; if certain details about the
doctrines studied are repulsive, that may be due to the facts more than
to the prejudice of the writer.
every word in Subramaniam’s evaluation is malicious and untrue. No
wonder, then, that he concludes his evaluation of Shourie’s latest book
as follows: “But serious thought of any variety has been replaced by spleen,
hysteria and abuse.” That, of course, is rather the case with Shourie’s
critics, including Subramaniam himself who keeps the readers in the dark
about Shourie’s arguments and withholds from us his own rebuttals.
If Romila Thapar refers to his review, it can only be for its “treating
Shourie like a joke”, but by no means for its demonstrating how history
has now become a scientific discipline. All it demonstrates is the
bullying rhetoric so common in the debate between the scientific and the
secularist schools of Indian history. As a
reader commented in the next issue: “The review of Arun Shourie’s Eminent
Historians ironically hardly mentioned what the book was about.
It read more like a biographical sketch of the author with a string of
abuses thrown in.”8
for NU professor Harbans Mukhia, in a guest column in Indian Express,
he surveys the influence of Marxism in Indian historiography, highlighting
the pioneering work of D.D. Kosambi, R.S. Sharma and Irfan Habib in the
1950s and 60s.9 He argues that this Marxist
wave began without state patronage; this in an apparent attempt to refute
Shourie’s account of the role of state patronage and of the resulting corruption
in the power position Marxist historians have come to enjoy. This
is of course a straw man: Shourie never denied that Kosambi meant what
he wrote rather than being an opportunist eager to please Marxist patrons.
of Marxist scholarship started with independent and sincere (though by
no means impeccable) scholars like Kosambi. In a second phase, the
swelling ranks of committed Marxist academics got a hold on the academic
and cultural power positions. In the next phase, being a Marxist
was so profitable that many opportunists whose commitment was much shallower
also joined the ranks, hastening the inevitable process of corruption.
I may add that in the present phase, Marxists are furiously defending their
power position while their history-rewriting is being exposed and demolished;
in the final phase, they will lose
their grip and disappear.
Anyway, the only
real argument which Mukhia develops, is this: “To be fair, such few professionals
as the BJP has in its camp have seldom levelled these charges at least
in public. They leave this task to the likes of Sita Ram Goel who,
one learns, does full time business for profit and part time history for
pleasure, and Arun Shourie who, too, one learns, does journalism for a
living, specializing in the investigation of non-BJP persons’ scandals.”
It is not clear
where Mukhia has done his “learning”, but his information on Goel is incorrect.
Goel was a brilliant student of History at Delhi University where he earned
his MA. in some parts of the period 1949-63 he was indeed a “part-time
historian”, working for a living as well as doing nonprofit research on
the contemporary history of Communism. He did full-time business
for profit between 1963, when he lost his job after publishing a book critical
of Jawaharlal Nehru, and 1982, when he handed his business over to younger
relatives. Ever since, he has been a full-time historian, and some
of his publications are simply the best in their field, standing unchallenged
by the historians of Mukhia’s school, who have never gotten farther than
the kind of invective ad hominem which we find in the abovementioned
texts by Romila Thapar, S. Subramaniam and Mukhia himself.
As for Shourie,
Mukhia is hardly revealing a secret with his information that Shourie “does
journalism for a living”. The greatest investigative journalist in
India by far, he has indeed unearthed some dirty secrets of Congressite,
casteist and Communist politicians. His revelations about the corrupt
financial dealings between the Marxist historians and the government-sponsored
academic institutions are in that same category: fearless and factual investigative
journalism. Shourie has a Ph.D. degree in Economics from Syracuse
University in U.S.A., which should attest to a capacity for scholarship,
even if not strictly in the historical field. When he criticizes
the gross distortions of history by Mukhia’s school, one could say formally
that he transgresses the boundaries of his specialism, but such formalistic
exclusives only hide the absence of a substantive refutation.
all, it is only the contents of an author’s writings on history which must
stamp him as a real c.q. a would-be historian. For instance, Shourie’s
historical research on Dr. Ambedkar has suddenly brought back to earth
the deified Ambedkar of the early 1990s.10
None of the politicians or intellectuals who had extolled Ambedkar beyond
all proportion till the day before have challenged the research findings
presented by Shourie. Likewise, Shourie’s allegations of both financial
malfeasance and scholarly manipulation (amounting to wilful distortion
of Indian history) against Harbans Mukhia’s circle stand unshaken.
4.4. Kalhana’s first-hand testimony
let us look into the historical references cited by Romila Thapar.
To check Banabhatta’s Harshacharita, concerning Harsha of Kanauj
(r.606-647), no knowledge of Sanskrit is needed, for the book has long
been extant in English and Hindi translations.11
I have not found the allegations cited by Romila Thapar, nor any other
description of a case of religious persecution (though Bana mentions in
passing that the Buddhist monks did not love the Brahmins, a legitimate
exercise of their freedom of opinion as guaranteed under all Hindu regimes).
On the contrary, the text testifies to Hindu society’s achievement of an
impressive communal harmony, as even the otherwise Hindu-baiting translator
E.B.Cowell is forced to admit.
Of course, being
myopic and easily distracted when reading difficult texts, I may have overlooked
the tell-tale passage. Perhaps the eminent historian could provide
the exact location and quotation herself? Meanwhile, I have been able to
consult both the Sanskrit original and the English translation of Kalhana’s
Râjataraniginî, and that source provides a clinching
or Harshadeva of Kashmir (r. 1089-1111) has been called the “Nero of Kashmir”,
and this “because of his cruelty”.12 He is
described by Kalhana as having looted and desecrated most of the Hindu
and Buddhist temples in Kashmir, partly through an office which he had
created specially for this purpose. 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.
was a fellow-traveller: not yet a full convert to Islam (he still ate pork),
but quite adapted to the Islamic ways, for “he ever fostered with money
the Turks, who were his centurions”.13 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 (two of them Buddhist)14
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.”15
So there you have
it: “the Turk king Harsha”. Far from representing Hindu tradition
of iconoclasm which no one has ever known or discovered, 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. Even
Ranjit Sitaram Pandit is forced to admit the impact of Islam, though in
veiled language: “The Turks referred to here, it is clear, are those who
in accordance with the religious ideas of the Arabs had renounced
All 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
be knowing that it doesn’t support the claim she is making. Clearly
she has been bluffing, making false claims about Kalhana’s testimony in
the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source.
Worst of all, she has made these false claims about Kalhana’s testimony
even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana.
4.5. Romila Thapar on Mahmud Ghaznavi
It is not the
first and only time that Romila Thapar has somehow missed the decisive
information given in primary sources. In her
much-publicized paper on Somnath and Mahmud Ghaznavi, she questioned the
veracity of Mahmud’s reputation as an idol-breaker, claiming that all the
references to Mahmud’s destruction of the Somnath temple (1026) are non-contemporary
as well as distorted by ulterior motives.17
That was the Ayodhya
debate all over again: when evidence was offered of pre-British references
to the destruction of a Rama temple on the Babri Masjid site, the pro-Babri
Masjid Action Committee historians
replied that the evidence was not
contemporary enough, but without explaining why so many secondary sources
come up with the temple demolition story. Likewise here: if there
was so much myth-making around Ghaznavi’s Somnath campaign, even making
him the norm of iconoclasm against which the Islamic zeal of every Delhi
sultan was measured, what momentous event (other than that he really destroyed
the Somnath temple) triggered all this myth-making?
Anyway, in this
case the claim that there is no contemporary evidence for Mahmud’s explicitly
religious act of destroying the Somnath idol and temple, is simply false.
Though Romila Thapar does mention Ghaznavi’s employee Alberuni, she conceals
that Alberuni, who had widely travelled in India and was as contemporary
to Ghaznavi as can be, has explicitly confirmed Ghaznavi’s general policy
of Islamic iconoclasm and specifically his destruction of the Somnath temple. It
is in fact Alberuni who gives the oft-quoted detail that the main idol
was broken to pieces, with one piece being thrown into the hippodrome of
a mosque in Ghazni and another being built into the steps at the entrance
of the mosque, so that worshippers could wipe their feet on it.”18
Mahmud’s effort to desecrate the idol by all means shows that his iconoclasm
was not just a matter of stealing the temple gold, but was a studied act
of religious desecration.
He thereby smashed
to pieces yet another pet theory of the Romila Thapar school, viz. that
the Islamic iconoclasts’ motive was economic rather than religious. I think
it is demeaning to devout Muslim rulers when their religious zeal is explained
away as a mere matter of greed. Also, in Islam there is no contradiction
between greed and religious zeal, as the division of the spoils is a rightful
conclusion to a jihad, sanctioned by Prophet Mohammed’s own example.
At any rate, it is precisely the primary sources which leave no stone standing
of the edifice of Nehruvian history-rewriting.
It may be remarked
here in passing that Prof. Thapar also demonstrates her very weak grip
on religious issues with her little excursus on the occasional Muslim interpretation
(rendered more plausible by the imprecision of the Arabic script in transcribing
Indian words) of Somanâtha as “Somanât”, and
hence of the temple as a place where the Arabian Goddess Manât was
worshipped. In spite of her own position, she actually hits the nail
on the head in her rendering of what she describes as Turco-Persian myth-making:
“The link with Manat added to the acclaim for Mahmud. Not only was
he the prize iconoclast in breaking Hindu idols, but in destroying Manat
he had carried out what were said to be the very orders of the Prophet.”
Far from being some semi-literate’s private myth-making, this is a fanciful
elaboration on what is otherwise a pure instance of Islamic theology, valid
for all Muslims who take their religion seriously. Regardless of
whether Manat was worshipped in the Somnath temple (or earlier in a Somnath-devoted
open-air sacred space), the Islamic struggle against “polytheistic, idolatrous”
Hinduism was but a continuation of Prophet Mohammed’s own struggle against
and destruction of the native “polytheistic, idolatrous” religion of Arabia.
The continuity between these two Pagan traditions had been acknowledged
by their own votaries: pre-Islamic Arab traders in Gujarat paid their respects
to Shiva Somnath, as Hindu traders in Bahrain or Yemen did to the Gods
and Goddesses of Arabia in the Kaaba. In Islam, it was therefore
a pious act to treat all instances of Hindu idolatry the way Prophet Mohammed
had treated the idols in the Kaaba upon conquering Mecca: destroy them.
In spite of herself, Prof. Thapar has pointed out the purely Islamic basis
for Mahmud’s behaviour.
4.6. A small apology
It gives me no
enjoyment to demolish the false credibility of a highly-placed historian
like Prof. Romila Thapar. indeed, those who have read earlier works of
mine, esp. Negationism in India (1992), will have noticed
that my language even in polemic has softened and become more focused on
viewpoints rather than groups of people such “the” Muslims or the Marxist
historians. I truly regret it if the above chapter has hurt the feelings
of the august professor, as I guess it must have. The only mitigating
circumstances, which still cannot undo my sincere regret, are the following
Firstly, it must
have become quite apparent in passing that she herself has done her share
of levelling accusations against people. I dare add that she has
often made allegations very lightly, either without bothering to check
the sources or deliberately not taking the sources’ information into account.
in my research on various topics, I have run into allegations by Prof.
Thapar which flew in the face of both the documentation available to historians
and the general knowledge available to the public.
when writing on the Aryan invasion debate, I encountered a paper by her
on the same topic in which she alleged that in the Arya Samaj, “the untouchables
were excluded”19 Every Indian, and a fortiori
a historian originating in the Arya Samaj’s Panjabi heartland. must be
aware that the Arya Samaj pioneered the struggle against untouchability,
and that its office-bearers voluntarily risked exclusion from their own
castes by inviting untouchables to participate in the Samaj’s activities
on equal terms. It is hard to find a way of explaining the eminent
historian’s slur on the Arya Samaj as a mere mistake.
Secondly, in my
criticism of other authors, I take their social position into account.
I will avoid being harsh on a poor and marginal author who is made to suffer
for his opinions by being thwarted in his career. On the other hand,
people who enjoy fame, profitable appointments and royalties from prestigious
publishers, should have a thicker skin. Prof. Thapar is the most-applauded
Nehruvian historian alive at the time of my writing, so my little bit of
criticism is easily outweighed by all the more pleasant aspects of her
In early 2001,
she even received an honorary doctorate at the Sorbonne, France’s premier
university. Most unusually, the awarding committee made it a point
to lambast, in its official announcement, French journalist François
Gautier for having exposed some of the scholarly frauds committed by the
eminent historian. Rather than check Gautier’s allegations, which
implied that rewarding Romila Thapar would taint the fair name of the Sorbonne,
the French professors acted as her good political buddies and awarded her
the honour anyway. Fair enough: at her age, she should not be denied
some fine laurels to rest on.
Temples, vol.2 (2nd ed.), p.421.
Taranga 7: 1089 ff.
Thapar et al.: Communalism in the Waiting of Indian History, People’s
Publishing House, Delhi 1987 (1969), p.15-16, and repeated in her letter
to Mr. Manish Tayal (UK), 7-2-1999, concerning Arun Shourie: Eminent
Historians, ASA, Delhi 1998.
Tayal: “Romila Thapar’s reply to ‘Eminent Historians’”, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Ram Goel: Hindu Temples, What Happened to Them, vol. 2 (second edition),
Stein, ed.: Kalhana’s Rajatarangini or Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir
(1892), republished by Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi 1960.
Subramaniam: “History sheeter. Bullheaded Shourie makes the left-right
debate a brawl”, India Today, 7-12-1998.
Panda, Delhi, in India Today, 21-12-1998.
Mukhia: “Historical wrongs. The rise of the part-time historian”,
Indian Express, 27-11-1998.
Shourie: Worshipping False Gods. Ambedkar and the Facts which
Have Been Erased, ASA, Delhi 1997.
Cowell and F.W. Thomas: Harsa Carita of Bana, Royal Asiatic Society
Oriental Translation Fund, New Series no. VIII, London 1929 (1897);
and Jagannatha Pathak: Harsha-Charita, Chaukhamba Vidyabhavan, Varanasi
1964. Also vide V.S. Agrawala: The Deeds of Harsha, Prithivi
Prakashan, Varanasi 1969, and Bijnath Sharma: Harsha and His Times,
Sushma Prakasha, Varanasi 1970.
Bhattacherje: Encyclopaedia of Indian Events and Dates, Sterling
Publ., Delhi 1995, p.A-20.
7:1149; translation by Ranjit Sitaram Pandit, Sahitya Akademi reprint,
Delhi 1990, p.357; other relevant passages at p.352.
in Rajatarangini 7:1096-1098; translation by R.S. Pandit.
7:1095; translation by R.S. Pandit, p.352.
p.357n.; translation by R.S. Pandit; emphasis added.
Thapar: “Somanatha and Mahmud”, Frontline, 23-4-1999. The Communist
fortnightly refused to publish a rebuttal by a historian of equal rank,
Prof. K.S. Lal; it was published as “Somnath and Mahmud” in Organiser,
Sechau, tra.: Alberuni’s India, London 1910, vol.2, p.103.
Thapar: “The theory of the Aryan race and India: history and politics”,
Social Scientist, Delhi, January-March 1996, p.8, discussed in K.
Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi
Back to Contents
Page Back to VOD Books
Back to Home