Perry Anderson, LRB, August 2012:
“…Compared with the fate of Pakistan after the death of
Jinnah, India was fortunate. If the state was not truly secular – within a
couple of years it was rebuilding with much pomp the famous Hindu temple in
Somnath, ravaged by Muslim invaders, and authorising the installation of Hindu
idols in the mosque at Ayodhya – it wasn’t overtly confessional either…”
John Keay, ‘India: A History: Revised and Expanded Edition’, 2011:
“…From this campaign Mahmud returned with booty valued at
twenty million dirhams, fifty-three thousand slaves and 350 elephants…
…Somnath’s fort looked more formidable. It seems, though, to
have been defended not by troops but by its enormous complement of brahmans and
hordes of devotees. Ill-armed, they placed their trust in blind aggression and
the intercession of the temple’s celebrated lingam (the phallic icon of Lord
Shiva). With ladders and ropes Mahmud’s disciplined professionals scaled the
walls and went about their business. Such was the resultant carnage that even
the Muslim chroniclers betray a hint of unease. What one of them calls ‘the
dreadful slaughter’ outside the temple was yet worse.
Band after band of the defenders entered the temple of
Somnath, and with their hands clasped round their necks, wept and passionately
entreated him [the Shiva lingam]. Then again they issued forth until they were
slain and but few were left alive … The number of the dead exceeded fifty
thousand.
Additionally twenty million dirhams-worth of gold, silver
and gems was looted from the temple. But what rankled even more than the loot
and the appalling death-toll was the satisfaction which Mahmud took in
destroying the great gilded lingam. After stripping it of its gold, he
personally laid into it with his ‘sword’ – which must have been more like a
sledgehammer. The bits were then sent back to Ghazni and incorporated into the
steps of its new Jami Masjid (Friday Mosque), there to be humiliatingly
trampled and perpetually defiled by the feet of the Muslim faithful….”
Richard Eaton has written a book 'India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765'. The title is interesting and I intend to read it all.
But this post is about just one chapter in the book 'A TALE OF TWO RAIDS: 1022, 1025', 2019 where he compares raids of Rajendra I (r. 1014–44), maharaja of the Chola empire
(848–1279), on Orissa and Bengal and Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (r. 997–1030) on India. Both armies had traveled approximately 1600 km.
It's a fairly longish chapter and worth reading but I was left very unsatisfied because he does not talk about three aspects of both the raids:
1. how were captured women - both ordinary citizens as well as royalty- treated?
2. were there religious conversions because of the raids?
3. How were the new slaves- created because of the campaigns- treated?
He however clearly states this:
"...Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni
also ordered its Śiva image to be broken up and its pieces taken back to
Ghazni, his capital, to be set in a floor and walked upon.
The southerners (led by Rajendra I) crowned their victory by carrying off a
bronze image of the deity Śiva, which they seized from a royal temple that
Mahipala had presumably patronized. In the course of this long campaign, the
invaders also took from the Kalinga raja of Orissa images of Bhairava, Bhairavi
and Kali. These, together with precious gems looted from the Pala king, were
taken down to the Chola capital as war booty. Before leaving the delta, however, Chola officers directed
an operation unusual for military campaigns: they arranged for water from the
Ganges River to be collected in pots and carried on the army’s long march back
to Tanjavur..."
Richard Eaton also writes: "... The silence of contemporary Hindu sources regarding Mahmud’s
raid suggests that in Somnath itself it was either forgotten altogether or
viewed as just another unfortunate attack by an outsider, and hence unremarkable...In fact, the demonization of Mahmud and the portrayal of his
raid on Somnath as an assault on Indian religion by Muslim invaders dates only
from the early 1840s..."
I don't think so because a lot of India's history has remained unrecorded for most of its history and what Mahmud of Ghazni did was not just connected to the religion but arguably it had large impact on its culture.
Therefore, I feel that that the raids were really not comparable.
courtesy: the cover artist and the writer