The campaign around the Ram Temple, including the demolition of the Babri Masjid, paid rich electoral dividends to the BJP and its parent RSS. Kashi and Mathura are in line. A new front has now been opened with the Somnath Swabhiman Parv (Somnath Self-Pride Festival). Speaking on the occasion in full religious regalia, our non-biological Prime Minister stated two things, directly and indirectly. First, that Somnath Temple stood as a symbol of India’s glory, that Muslim kings attacked it repeatedly, and that it returned each time with even greater grandeur. Mahmood Ghazni demolished it in 1026 and plundered it 17 times. The second point was directed against the Congress, particularly Jawaharlal Nehru, the present Prime Minister’s preferred opponent, accusing him of opposing Somnath’s reconstruction.
It is doubtful that any place of worship can stand as the symbol of a nation. The most important aspect of religion has always been its moral values, as the Father of the Nation, Gandhi, taught us. As for Mahmood Ghazni, he did plunder Somnath. His court historians emphasised that he did so for religious reasons, as idol worship is not permitted in Islam. However, Persian sources such as Al-Utabi and Al-Biruni also describe Somnath as a treasure house. The major flaw in the claim that idol destruction was his primary motive is that he left untouched many idols on the way from Ghazna to Somnath.
Ghazni likely had multiple motives, the primary one being wealth, as Somnath was among the richest temples in India. According to Romila Thapar (History of Ancient India, Penguin), it possessed wealth equivalent to 20,000 golden dinars. There is no definitive source confirming 17 plunderings; this is largely a popular myth. The wealth seized was carried away on many elephants. Ghazni’s army included several Hindu generals—Tilak, Sondhi, Harzan, and Hind—according to Tarikh-i-Bayhaqi. Ghazni’s successor Masood later sent an expedition under Tilak, one of these generals, to plunder wealth from a mosque in Central Asia.
As he withdrew, Ghazni appointed a local Hindu king as his governor. He also issued coins with Sanskrit inscriptions. King Anandpal of Thaneshwar assisted him by sending elephants and soldiers.
Temple destruction in ancient and medieval India was rarely a religious act. Richard Eaton’s research on temple desecration before the Mughal period shows that when two Hindu kings fought, the victor often destroyed the kuldevta idol of the defeated king and installed his own. In the conflict between Khilji and Abdul Fath Dawood of Multan, a mosque was demolished. Linking religion with rulers became a systematic practice under the British, who imposed communal historiography to divide society. From James Mill’s History of India to Elliot and Dowson’s multivolume History of India as Told by Her Historians, religion became the chief lens for interpreting rule.
Mr Modi’s politics is opening another divisive front and dragging Nehru into it. He suggests Nehru opposed rebuilding Somnath. This is false. The question arose while Gandhi was alive, and he categorically stated that state funds should not be used to construct religious shrines. The Supreme Court expressed similar views during the Ram Temple case. Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel were in agreement. At the prayer meeting on 28 November 1947, Gandhi stated that the Junagadh administration could not allocate state funds for the temple.
Gandhi asked Sardar Patel whether government funds were being provided for Somnath. Patel replied that as long as he lived, no such allocation would occur, and rebuilding would rely solely on public donations.
Accordingly, a trust was formed with Patel as chairperson and K.M. Munshi and N.V. Gadgil as trustees, which completed reconstruction. Misinformation continued even after this. When President Rajendra Prasad was invited to inaugurate the temple, he wrote to Nehru on 2 March 1951 saying he wished to attend in a personal capacity. Nehru replied that he had no objection if Prasad went privately. Nehru made the same point to C. Rajagopalachari on 11 March 1951 (as Piyush Babele documents).
Babele clarifies the record with evidence, also questioning why Presidents Ram Nath Kovind and Droupadi Murmu were excluded from Ram Temple ceremonies. Both were omitted from the foundation ceremony and inauguration—one a Dalit, the other an Adivasi.
On another front, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, speaking at a youth festival, declared that as temples were plundered and villages ransacked in the past, it is time for revenge. This advice is deeply regressive. Revenge has no place in modern law. Justice punishes the guilty and protects the innocent. Against whom should revenge be taken? For temple destruction by Hindu and Muslim kings, who is responsible today? Doval did not mention other historical atrocities: the destruction of Buddhist viharas and Jain temples, entrenched caste oppression, violence against women, and practices like sati. Who should avenge these?
History should not be used to divide society or perpetuate past injustices. It should help us understand past wrongs so they are not repeated. We need to move towards a just society where everyone lives with dignity and respect, and where all citizens enjoy equal rights.
---
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor