ONE of the fascinating features of history is that often political and social interests bring back those events and personalities which have already been forgotten and disappeared into the past. However, whenever they are brought back to life from the worm-eaten pages of history books, they are enthusiastically related to the needs of present time and in this way there new construction connects the past with the present. One of the events, which is represented from different angles in the Indian history, is Mahmud of Ghazna’s invasion of Somanatha, and its subsequent destruction. It created two antithetical points of view, coloured with religion and promoted communal feelings in the subcontinent between the Hindus and the Muslims.
A recently published Romila Thapar’s book on the Somanatha temple, The many voices of a history is an excellent piece of research in which she documents different versions of history regarding the temple. Writing on the location of the temple, she points out that it was situated in Gujarat and played a key role because of its port, Verval, which was the hub of commercial activities in the state. Traders as well as sea pirates had close links with the temple and donated a large amount of money to show their devotion to the idol, which they believed made them rich and prosperous. Because of a mammoth amount of wealth donated to the temple, its reputation spread far and wide. Gujarat remained the centre of commercial activities from 10th to 14th centuries. However, it was declined in the 15th century by the Arab traders who started to use an alternative sea route to reach South East Asia. This reduced the splendour and glory of the temple.
Interestingly, the contemporary historians like al Bairuni, Utbi and Bahqahi, Gardezi did not write about his Somanatha campaign in detail. However, Farrukh Sistani, a poet, while writing a qasida (ode), mentions that Mahmud destroyed Somanatha. And by narrating the history of idols, explains that two out of the three deities of Mecca, Lat and Uzza, were destroyed but Manat was safely brought to Kathiawar and placed in Somanatha. In these contemporary sources Mahmud is represented as the champion of the Sunni sect, who, defending his faith, crushed the shias and the Ismailis and demolished their mosques to show his loyalty to the Abbasid Caliph.
In the 12th century, Persian texts described the wealth of Somanatha in exaggerated language and proved that Mahmud, after breaking Somanatha, the last remaining idol from Mecca, actually completed the mission of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). At this stage he was given the title of ‘idol breaker’. The popular story that he broke the idol in spite of tempting offers from the priest shows that the Sultan was not hankering after wealth, but wanted to serve and defend his faith. Though in the end he got a lot of wealth that came out from the belly of the broken idol. A gift from God to his true followers.
In the 14th century, Persian sources changed their image of Mahmud because it was the time when the Turkish Sultante had established in the Indian subcontinent and there was no need for conquerors or invaders who looted and plundered the country and demolished temples, but those who consolidated the Islamic state. This converted Mahmud from an invader to the founder of the Islamic state in India. This character of Mahmud is portrayed by Ziauddin Barani in Fatawa-I-Jahandari and by Isami in Futuh al-Salatin. He was modelled on ancient Persian emperors as the just ruler who wiped out religious dissidents and heretics.
The tone about Mahmud and desecration of the temple changed during Akbar’s period when Abul Fazl writes in A’in-I-Akbari, “Fanatical bigots representing India as a country of unbelievers at war with Islam incited his unsuspecting nature to the wreck of honour and the shedding of blood and the plunder of the virtuous.” However, Hindushah Firishta writing his history in the Deccan mentions that the Muslim rulers of Gujarat razed the Somanatha temple, an act of piety according to him, and built a mosque in its place. Aurangzeb, in his last days, ordered to demolish the temple and build a mosque on its site in 1706 but his order was not obeyed, perhaps because of his death in 1707.
Romila Thapar then cites the Sanskrit inscriptions and sources of Jain religion where there is no mention of Mahmud’s invasion or desecration of the temple. On the other hand, these inscriptions show that Muslim Arabs and Iranian traders were living in Gujarat peacefully after the invasion. Even the ruler of Gujarat permitted a Muslim trader Nuruddin to build a mosque in the campus of Somanatha. Quoting these sources she concludes that the people of Gujarat had forgotten Mahmud’s invasion and it remained no longer in their collective memory.
As a matter of fact the issue of Somanatha surfaced during the colonial period when the British authorities used it to create a division between the Muslims and the Hindus. It was propagated on the basis of Persian texts that Mahmud, after attacking and breaking the idol, humiliated the Hindus and the memory of this defeat was still fresh in the minds of the Hindus. In 1842 before the invasion of Afghanistan, Lord Ellenbrough, the governor-general of India, announced that the British government would bring back those gates of Somanatha, which were taken away by Mahmud and were now placed at his tomb. Interestingly, in this way, the British government wanted to legitimize its rule and assert its position to take revenge for the past Indian defeat and humiliation. However, the announcement neither pleased the Hindus nor the Muslims. When the gates were brought back it was found that they were not genuine.
After the partition, in 1951, an attempt was made to restore and rebuild the temple.
Romila Thapar, in her excellent study has proved that how history is politicized to fulfil the interest of some politicians who want to gain on the basis of it.
