What do you think?
Rate this book
Somanatha
In 1026, Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni raided the Hindu temple of Somanatha (Somnath in textbooks of the colonial period). The story of the raid has reverberated in Indian history, but largely during the raj. It was first depicted as a trauma for the Hindu population not in India, but in the House of Commons. The triumphalist accounts of the event in Turko-Persian chronicles became the main source for most eighteenth-century historians. It suited everyone and helped the British to divide and rule a multi-millioned subcontinent. In her new book, Romila Thapar, the doyenne of Indian historians, reconstructs what took place by studying other sources, including local Sanskrit inscriptions, biographies of kings and merchants of the period, court epics and popular narratives that have survived. The result is astounding and undermines the traditional version of what took place. What makes her findings explosive is the fact that the current Hindu nationalist regime in India constantly utilizes a particular version of history
265 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2004
48 people are currently reading
718 people want to read
About the author
Romila Thapar
93 books359 followersRomila Thapar is an Indian historian and Professor Emeritus at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
A graduate from Panjab University, Dr. Thapar completed her PhD in the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.
Her historical work portrays the origins of Hinduism as an evolving interplay between social forces. Her recent work on Somnath examines the evolution of the historiographies about the legendary Gujarat temple.
Thapar has been a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the College de France in Paris. She was elected General President of the Indian History Congress in 1983 and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy in 1999.
A graduate from Panjab University, Dr. Thapar completed her PhD in the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.
Her historical work portrays the origins of Hinduism as an evolving interplay between social forces. Her recent work on Somnath examines the evolution of the historiographies about the legendary Gujarat temple.
Thapar has been a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the College de France in Paris. She was elected General President of the Indian History Congress in 1983 and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy in 1999.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
December 15, 2019
As always biased, distorted, bigoted, Marxist, whitewashing and Islamic sympathetic book by Romila Thapar. No wonder why we are tired of this Marxist writer and her entire cabal.
And Oh yea! those who want to read and brainwashed themselves can read books from such writers. Manu Pillai is new branded leftist historian. You can already see how media and lit fest are portraying him. Congrats India! I don't think we will ever get to read rational and unbiased history books in this age. And when someone try to correct the history, these leftist cabal will shout that this is saffronising of history books.
Read the following the review to know what exactly is wrong with this book.
https://indiaandislam.typepad.com/blo...
And Oh yea! those who want to read and brainwashed themselves can read books from such writers. Manu Pillai is new branded leftist historian. You can already see how media and lit fest are portraying him. Congrats India! I don't think we will ever get to read rational and unbiased history books in this age. And when someone try to correct the history, these leftist cabal will shout that this is saffronising of history books.
Read the following the review to know what exactly is wrong with this book.
https://indiaandislam.typepad.com/blo...
October 6, 2012
Once upon a time there were no Hindus and Muslims in India but a rich and diverse culture with Turks, Persians, Arabs, Jains & Shivas. There was a temple in Somanatha dedicated to Shiva which was never actually destroyed by the Mahmud Ghazni, never once let alone seventeen times. The whole story is apocryphal, concatenated by the Colonists to foster their own take on history which was a pretty straight forward story, Muslims terrorised Hindus for centuries, forcibly converting them and destroying their temples, thus instilling a great hatred for their Muslim masters. The British finally came to the rescue of the pliant and slavish Hindu and saved them from the Muslim tyranny, thus Hindus should be thankful to their new masters. The author states that even after independence, modern historians have chosen to pick pieces from the British history without questioning its authenticity. The author has painstakingly researched Jain and other contemporary narratives and decided that the whole story was an probably a very elaborate hoax!! Wow.
February 17, 2014
It was an incredibly slow book to read, but at the end of the day it feels like it was worth it.
Romila Thapar has undertaken a painstaking trawl through various sources which talk about the Somanatha Temple in southern Gujarat. The temple shot to limelight in recent history when it became a centre-piece (and excuse) for a struggle in the late 19th Century between British India and Afghanistan according to Thapar. Popular history in India suggests that Somanatha was desecrated and its idol destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1026 CE. While the actual event's occurrence has never been questioned by anybody, its importance and centrality to later events has been critically re-looked at by Thapar.
She does this masterfully. Thapar methodically tackles various sources from different viewpoints. She starts out with the traditional Turko-Persian narratives and proves that they are not as monolithic or clear-cut as they are made out to be. It is undeniable that they are the only sources we have that deal with the event first-hand. The very first chronicles especially those from near-contemporaries such as Firdausi or Al-Beruni treat the raid on the Somanatha as the one of the many temple-raids carried out by Mahmud in South Asia. It is the later ones which worry Thapar as somewhat indulging hyperbole (such as the improbably booty or number of people killed) if not out-right fantasy (the idol being suspended by magnets). Thapar points out glaring contradictions such as the uncertainty on whether the idol was a lingam or man-shaped or even female (!) (some chronicles insist that Somanatha is actually Manat, a pre-Islamic Arab goddess). If one takes all these Turkish chronicles at face value (as so many have) the temple was regularly destroyed/ converted to a mosque every half a century, something which other sources or archaeological records do not support. Thapar finally concludes that these sources should be analysed again and evaluated as to their trust-worthiness by juxtaposing with the other material we have.
Another oft-neglected body of material are the Sanskrit inscriptions we have around the region. Colonial historiography has always neglected these records along with Jaina and Rajput bardic and epic tales under perfidious excuses such as the "Hindus having no sense of history". What little records we do have present a fascinating account of South Gujarat in the 11th Century CE. Thapar spends quite a bit of time on particular inscription signed by many of the Somanatha elite which allowed an Arab Muslim trader to setup a mosque in the vicinity of Somanatha. This throws up fascinating questions such as the relations between Hindus and Muslims in this region. She somewhat concludes that Gujarat was not divided along the clear-cut religious lines and there was a complex relationship between various groups such as the Shaiva and Jaina priests and Arab, Jaina and Bohra (a Muslim group native to southern Gujarat) trader communities. Another interesting inscription is by a Goan Kadamaba king who undertakes a religious pilgrimage to Somanatha only fifty years after Mahmud's raid but makes no mention whatsoever of the raid but rather talks about how rich the surrounding area is.
The so-called "Hindu epics of resistance" from the 14th Century onwards are also discussed. While Thapar agrees that their actual historical content is very limited, they make for good lenses with which we can observe social mores during this period. She also categorically dismisses the label "Hindu" and thinks Rajput would be better suited as all of them deal with court intrigues between Rajput kings in Western India and their occasional tussles with Turks based around Delhi. Some of these epics even have vignettes featuring Muslim Mongols who fight with the Hindu Rajputs against Muslim Turks or even one where a Brahmin leads a Turk army into Somanatha against its Hindu rulers as revenge for a slight!
One section deals aptly titled "The Perceptions of Yet Others" has details of how Mahmud was viewed by the later Sufis and other Hindu/Muslim/mixed cults. The mere fact that these labels are very hard to apply is repeatedly highlighted by Thapar. In some cults Mahmud has been transformed into a holy warrior ascetic who bows down before the piety of a local pir (saint) before carrying out his attack on Somanatha. Another famous cultic figure called Ghazi Miyan has transformed over time from Mahmud's son to his nephew to an unrelated personality who watches over his devotees first with the sword then later on, just with his holy powers of piety and asceticism. These cults and groups maybe only locally important but the mere fact they have alternate stories to tell in a world increasingly seen as divided along only Hindu-Muslim lines is an important message to be carried away.
The concluding section deals with the Colonialist and Nationalist histories of the event which is the one that has most impacted modern Indians (and Pakistanis). While colonialist interpretations were the first to state that the raid was the one "which traumatized the entire Hindu-nation", later nationalist histories (especially fundamentalist Hindu and Muslim ones) exploited this event to their advantages once it was clear they would be big players in independent South Asia. Thapar questions the claims of many fundamentalist Hindu historians such as Munshi that Somanatha was raided 17 times which glaringly contradicts present archaeological evidence.
The last chapter makes a wonderful conclusion and explores ideas about how memories, actually constructed and competing memories influence the writing of history. It serves as a recap of the whole book.
Overall although the book was small it was extremely dense and slow to read. Thapar has an annoying habit of hammering certain facts over and over again (these are undeniably important, but they grate after a while). Also, the book is not something I'd recommend to a somebody not used to reading a lot of history as Thapar hedges so much. The book's purpose is obviously not a revision of Somanatha's history, rather a message that one shouldn't be drawn to simplistic versions peddled by so many historians. The sources are not perfect, whether Turkish, Jaina or folk but one can still learn and write good history if all these are juxtaposed and analysed fairly. This book makes for revelatory reading and recommended to readers who want to hear sane voices in an increasingly polarizing world.
Romila Thapar has undertaken a painstaking trawl through various sources which talk about the Somanatha Temple in southern Gujarat. The temple shot to limelight in recent history when it became a centre-piece (and excuse) for a struggle in the late 19th Century between British India and Afghanistan according to Thapar. Popular history in India suggests that Somanatha was desecrated and its idol destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1026 CE. While the actual event's occurrence has never been questioned by anybody, its importance and centrality to later events has been critically re-looked at by Thapar.
She does this masterfully. Thapar methodically tackles various sources from different viewpoints. She starts out with the traditional Turko-Persian narratives and proves that they are not as monolithic or clear-cut as they are made out to be. It is undeniable that they are the only sources we have that deal with the event first-hand. The very first chronicles especially those from near-contemporaries such as Firdausi or Al-Beruni treat the raid on the Somanatha as the one of the many temple-raids carried out by Mahmud in South Asia. It is the later ones which worry Thapar as somewhat indulging hyperbole (such as the improbably booty or number of people killed) if not out-right fantasy (the idol being suspended by magnets). Thapar points out glaring contradictions such as the uncertainty on whether the idol was a lingam or man-shaped or even female (!) (some chronicles insist that Somanatha is actually Manat, a pre-Islamic Arab goddess). If one takes all these Turkish chronicles at face value (as so many have) the temple was regularly destroyed/ converted to a mosque every half a century, something which other sources or archaeological records do not support. Thapar finally concludes that these sources should be analysed again and evaluated as to their trust-worthiness by juxtaposing with the other material we have.
Another oft-neglected body of material are the Sanskrit inscriptions we have around the region. Colonial historiography has always neglected these records along with Jaina and Rajput bardic and epic tales under perfidious excuses such as the "Hindus having no sense of history". What little records we do have present a fascinating account of South Gujarat in the 11th Century CE. Thapar spends quite a bit of time on particular inscription signed by many of the Somanatha elite which allowed an Arab Muslim trader to setup a mosque in the vicinity of Somanatha. This throws up fascinating questions such as the relations between Hindus and Muslims in this region. She somewhat concludes that Gujarat was not divided along the clear-cut religious lines and there was a complex relationship between various groups such as the Shaiva and Jaina priests and Arab, Jaina and Bohra (a Muslim group native to southern Gujarat) trader communities. Another interesting inscription is by a Goan Kadamaba king who undertakes a religious pilgrimage to Somanatha only fifty years after Mahmud's raid but makes no mention whatsoever of the raid but rather talks about how rich the surrounding area is.
The so-called "Hindu epics of resistance" from the 14th Century onwards are also discussed. While Thapar agrees that their actual historical content is very limited, they make for good lenses with which we can observe social mores during this period. She also categorically dismisses the label "Hindu" and thinks Rajput would be better suited as all of them deal with court intrigues between Rajput kings in Western India and their occasional tussles with Turks based around Delhi. Some of these epics even have vignettes featuring Muslim Mongols who fight with the Hindu Rajputs against Muslim Turks or even one where a Brahmin leads a Turk army into Somanatha against its Hindu rulers as revenge for a slight!
One section deals aptly titled "The Perceptions of Yet Others" has details of how Mahmud was viewed by the later Sufis and other Hindu/Muslim/mixed cults. The mere fact that these labels are very hard to apply is repeatedly highlighted by Thapar. In some cults Mahmud has been transformed into a holy warrior ascetic who bows down before the piety of a local pir (saint) before carrying out his attack on Somanatha. Another famous cultic figure called Ghazi Miyan has transformed over time from Mahmud's son to his nephew to an unrelated personality who watches over his devotees first with the sword then later on, just with his holy powers of piety and asceticism. These cults and groups maybe only locally important but the mere fact they have alternate stories to tell in a world increasingly seen as divided along only Hindu-Muslim lines is an important message to be carried away.
The concluding section deals with the Colonialist and Nationalist histories of the event which is the one that has most impacted modern Indians (and Pakistanis). While colonialist interpretations were the first to state that the raid was the one "which traumatized the entire Hindu-nation", later nationalist histories (especially fundamentalist Hindu and Muslim ones) exploited this event to their advantages once it was clear they would be big players in independent South Asia. Thapar questions the claims of many fundamentalist Hindu historians such as Munshi that Somanatha was raided 17 times which glaringly contradicts present archaeological evidence.
The last chapter makes a wonderful conclusion and explores ideas about how memories, actually constructed and competing memories influence the writing of history. It serves as a recap of the whole book.
Overall although the book was small it was extremely dense and slow to read. Thapar has an annoying habit of hammering certain facts over and over again (these are undeniably important, but they grate after a while). Also, the book is not something I'd recommend to a somebody not used to reading a lot of history as Thapar hedges so much. The book's purpose is obviously not a revision of Somanatha's history, rather a message that one shouldn't be drawn to simplistic versions peddled by so many historians. The sources are not perfect, whether Turkish, Jaina or folk but one can still learn and write good history if all these are juxtaposed and analysed fairly. This book makes for revelatory reading and recommended to readers who want to hear sane voices in an increasingly polarizing world.
October 31, 2009
its called a research
September 21, 2012
Somnatha – The Many voices of a history is a detailed research work by Romila Thapar with an attempt to weave these numerous voices using a comparative outlook of an unbiased researcher to reconstruct the history of Somnatha and to place each narrative, often resembling fantasy, in their own historical contexts. Romila Thapar narrates and analyzes these accounts dividing the book in unequal distinct sections. The Turko Persian narratives typically resembles the conquerer’s voice of telling the history while the Sanskrit sources focus on activities related to the Somnatha in the later period. Romila Thapar present both and also an alternative Jain perspective of the situation.
You may read the complete review on my blog
http://thebookoutline.blogspot.in/201...
You may read the complete review on my blog
http://thebookoutline.blogspot.in/201...
August 20, 2021
Such a biased writing, Authors intention was to insist that the invasion never happened or even if it had happened it was not a big deal. Hindus at that time took it easily ( Authors Claim) so we don't need to worry about it.
Author trying to prove that It was the British who exaggerated it with one sided proofs ( Persians/ Turks) for their benefits.
Clearly a leftist writing.
If you start reading books by these kind of authors you can easily understand, how they had distorted indian history after independence in the name of Secularism.
Author trying to prove that It was the British who exaggerated it with one sided proofs ( Persians/ Turks) for their benefits.
Clearly a leftist writing.
If you start reading books by these kind of authors you can easily understand, how they had distorted indian history after independence in the name of Secularism.
September 5, 2014
its researched all right!! What else does one expect from a historian of this stature!! However, it sets up a narrative of acceptance & doubt of the popular versions of this history- with a discernible slant of a secularist ideology & than goes about proving it tenaciously- almost flogging the hypothesis!! Not a very interesting reading- relying on the reader to be rather well informed!!
Again, however, its a great research work!!
Again, however, its a great research work!!
October 26, 2013
It is an incredible book about different voices from history. Romila Thapar has the talent without which the liberal ideas would have been less ventilated in Indian sub continent.
I would regards this attempt to explain complex relationship of politics, religion and history as one of the most intelligent and brave cultural effort
I would regards this attempt to explain complex relationship of politics, religion and history as one of the most intelligent and brave cultural effort
Read
December 17, 2007One must always revisit the "truths" of the past since they all have political motivations- in India this is true especially for all "facts" that are adduced in favor of the current Hindu right agenda.
March 6, 2017
Author could have concluded that therez no such temple called Somnath ;-)
May 26, 2021
“History is Written by Victors.” The quote gets attributed to Winston Churchill, but its origins are unknown. It implies that history is not grounded in facts, rather it’s the winners’ interpretation of them that prevails. The victors can force their narrative down on the people. And on the contrary, I can put another quote by Catherine de’ Medici: History is written by survivors.
Because the defeated also want to make shame to the winners. They want to glorify their past and create empathetic folklores, stories, songs which is later get established as information and people rarely get the ability to make difference between folklore and reality.
People think history is written as though they are a collection of information. But the fact is history is definitely NOT a “collection of facts about the past.” History consists of making arguments about what happened in the past on the basis of what people recorded (in written documents, cultural artifacts, or oral traditions) at the time. And Romilla Thapar made this argument clearly in this book and tries to make out the most plausible history about the mysterious Somnath temple.
This book is a brilliant account of one of the most central and historically fascinating temples of our existence time.
The Somnath temple is the most famous and the historical account of this temple is very fascinating, almost mythical. This legendary temple and its’ story is so enormously talked among the people that it sometimes sounds so vigorously lavish that I thought to know more about it.
Time passes and myths and legends on Somnath temple’s history were finally verified and came up as a book.
The topic has been handled with such vast span and clarity that a thorough reading will allow even a layman to follow.
A much-needed book to get rid of oblivion. It cuts the historical mirages
and let’s bloom out the most viable history of 11 the century’s India.
It was actually so interesting to see how Thapar investigates; searches all through the accounts of not only the kings but other business deals, temple’s accounts books, balance sheets, literature, and criss cross-examination with other country’s evidence.
The section when she turns her investigation to know how rich the temple could be actually and go through the understanding of cities density, population, citizens income, tax file and such vase collection of viable proof then come up with the most plausible data, and to realize the truth of this mythical saga is astonishing.
Her hunt to get to the higher accuracies of this 1000 years old painful saga, and to take our heritage put into a true historical pedestal is finally completed and she ended the book without any doubts.
Because the defeated also want to make shame to the winners. They want to glorify their past and create empathetic folklores, stories, songs which is later get established as information and people rarely get the ability to make difference between folklore and reality.
People think history is written as though they are a collection of information. But the fact is history is definitely NOT a “collection of facts about the past.” History consists of making arguments about what happened in the past on the basis of what people recorded (in written documents, cultural artifacts, or oral traditions) at the time. And Romilla Thapar made this argument clearly in this book and tries to make out the most plausible history about the mysterious Somnath temple.
This book is a brilliant account of one of the most central and historically fascinating temples of our existence time.
The Somnath temple is the most famous and the historical account of this temple is very fascinating, almost mythical. This legendary temple and its’ story is so enormously talked among the people that it sometimes sounds so vigorously lavish that I thought to know more about it.
Time passes and myths and legends on Somnath temple’s history were finally verified and came up as a book.
The topic has been handled with such vast span and clarity that a thorough reading will allow even a layman to follow.
A much-needed book to get rid of oblivion. It cuts the historical mirages
and let’s bloom out the most viable history of 11 the century’s India.
It was actually so interesting to see how Thapar investigates; searches all through the accounts of not only the kings but other business deals, temple’s accounts books, balance sheets, literature, and criss cross-examination with other country’s evidence.
The section when she turns her investigation to know how rich the temple could be actually and go through the understanding of cities density, population, citizens income, tax file and such vase collection of viable proof then come up with the most plausible data, and to realize the truth of this mythical saga is astonishing.
Her hunt to get to the higher accuracies of this 1000 years old painful saga, and to take our heritage put into a true historical pedestal is finally completed and she ended the book without any doubts.
April 22, 2025
#এক্কেবারে পাতে দেওয়ার যোগ্য নয়, gimmik আর hype-এর ডানায় ভর দিয়ে ভেসে থাকা ওভাররেটেড বইয়ের তালিকা :
এই বইয়ের মূল প্রস্তাবনা কী? Thapar এই বইয়ে দাবি করেছেন— মহম্মদ ঘোরির সেনাপতি মহম্মদ গজনির ১০২৫ খ্রিষ্টাব্দে সোমনাথ মন্দির ধ্বংস “শুধুই ধর্মীয় হামলা ছিল না”, বরং রাজনৈতিক অর্থলাভের চেষ্টা, এবং “Somanatha”-কে হিন্দু জাতীয়তাবাদের প্রতীক বানিয়ে একটি 'একপাক্ষিক' ইতিহাস গড়া হয়েছে।
আচ্ছা, ব্যাপারটা এরকম হয়ে গেল না, ওই যে ছেলেটা ক্লাসে দেরি করে এসে বলে—‘স্যার, ওটা আমার দোষ না, ঘড়িই ভুল দেখায়!’ – এটা সেই রকমের history blaming the clock?
এক এক করে বইয়ের বকৰ্তব্যগুলো দেখি চলুন:
১. ধর্ম নয়, রাজনীতি!—গজনি কি তখন সমাজবিজ্ঞান পড়ত? Thapar বলেন— "গজনি সোমনাথ ধ্বংস করেছিলেন রাজনৈতিক প্রতিপত্তি এবং সম্পদের জন্য, ধর্মীয় হানার উদ্দেশ্য ছিল না।"
ভালো কথা! তাহলে এই প্রশ্নগুলো কোথায় রাখবেন, ম্যাডাম?
কেন মন্দির ধ্বংস করে বিগ্রহ ভেঙে টুকরো করে নিয়ে গজনি নিজের শহরে বসিয়েছিলেন?
কেন তিনি বলেন: “I have destroyed the idol of the infidels and established the glory of Islam”?
২. ‘Many Voices of History’—শুধু যারা হিন্দু ধ্বংসকে নর্মালাইজ করে তাদের গলাগুলোই শুনেছেন? বইয়ের নাম ‘Many Voices’, অথচ:
স্থানীয় পাণ্ডা-পুরোহিতদের ভাষ্য?
রাজা-প্রজাদের যন্ত্রণার দলিল?
আঞ্চলিক কিংবদন্তি?
সবই বা তো বাদ গিয়েছে বা গুরুত্বহীন করে দেওয়া হয়েছে।
লেখিকা একটা কোরাস গাইতে ডেকেছেন, কিন্তু সব গায়কই এক দলের—বলুন তো, এটা কি সত্যিই বহুস্বর? না একটাই সুর, শুধু গলার জোর আলাদা?”
৩. ইসলামি আগ্রাসনকে রূপান্তর করা হয়েছে—'সাম্রাজ্যিক কৌশল'-এ! বইটি এক ধরনের soft-washing—
মুসলিম আক্রমণকারী মানেই বর্বর নন; তাঁরা ‘রাজনৈতিক প্রকল্প’ চালাতেন! সেটা সত্য হলেও প্রশ্ন হল:
কেন শুধুই মন্দির লক্ষ্য হতো?
কেন ইচ্ছাকৃত প্রতীক ধ্বংস চলতো?
কেন গজনির “হিন্দুদের বিরুদ্ধে জেহাদ” ঘোষণা লিপিবদ্ধ রয়েছে নিজস্ব ঐতিহাসিকদের লেখায়?
এইটা এমন হয়ে গেল না, কেউ বাড়িতে ঢুকে সবকিছু ভাঙচুর করল, আর আপনি বললেন—ওটা ওর ইনটেরিয়র ডিজাইন প্রজেক্ট ছিল।”
৪. সোমনাথের গৌরব ও বেদনা—এই বইতে নেই! থাপর বইতে সোমনাথের ইতিহাসকে যেভাবে উপস্থাপন করেছেন, তাতে কোনও আত্মার কান্না নেই, প্রতিরোধের গৌরব নেই, পুণ্যভূমির স্মৃতি নেই।
এটা শুধু একটি ক্লিনিকাল, ডিটারজেন্টে ধোয়া, বর্ণহীন ইতিহাস—যেখানে হিন্দু বেদনা নিষিদ্ধ, আর আক্রমণকারী নির্দোষ।
এই বই পড়ে মনে হয় না ইতিহাস পড়ছি, মনে হয় কাউকে বাঁচাতে defence evidence লেখা হচ্ছে।
উপসংহার: ইতিহাস না, এটা এক আদর্শগত প্রমাণ-নাটক: Thapar-এর লক্ষ্য নয় ইতিহাসের পূর্ণতা; বরং, ভারতীয় স্মৃতি ও ধর্মীয় ঐতিহ্যকে বিচ্ছিন্ন করা এক নতুন বয়ান দিয়ে। এটি এক ‘academic gaslighting’—যেখানে সোমনাথ ভেঙে যায় দ্বিতীয়বার, এইবার কলম দিয়ে।
এই বইকে ইতিহাস বলা যায় না। এটা সেই কাহিনি, যেখানে গর্ভগৃহে ঢুকে কেউ মাটির ওপর দাঁড়িয়ে বলে—‘এই জায়গাটা কি আগে ঘর ছিল?’
জঘন্য। তবুও পড়ুন। আসল খেলাটা ধরতেই পারবেন না এই বই না পড়লে।
এই বইয়ের মূল প্রস্তাবনা কী? Thapar এই বইয়ে দাবি করেছেন— মহম্মদ ঘোরির সেনাপতি মহম্মদ গজনির ১০২৫ খ্রিষ্টাব্দে সোমনাথ মন্দির ধ্বংস “শুধুই ধর্মীয় হামলা ছিল না”, বরং রাজনৈতিক অর্থলাভের চেষ্টা, এবং “Somanatha”-কে হিন্দু জাতীয়তাবাদের প্রতীক বানিয়ে একটি 'একপাক্ষিক' ইতিহাস গড়া হয়েছে।
আচ্ছা, ব্যাপারটা এরকম হয়ে গেল না, ওই যে ছেলেটা ক্লাসে দেরি করে এসে বলে—‘স্যার, ওটা আমার দোষ না, ঘড়িই ভুল দেখায়!’ – এটা সেই রকমের history blaming the clock?
এক এক করে বইয়ের বকৰ্তব্যগুলো দেখি চলুন:
১. ধর্ম নয়, রাজনীতি!—গজনি কি তখন সমাজবিজ্ঞান পড়ত? Thapar বলেন— "গজনি সোমনাথ ধ্বংস করেছিলেন রাজনৈতিক প্রতিপত্তি এবং সম্পদের জন্য, ধর্মীয় হানার উদ্দেশ্য ছিল না।"
ভালো কথা! তাহলে এই প্রশ্নগুলো কোথায় রাখবেন, ম্যাডাম?
কেন মন্দির ধ্বংস করে বিগ্রহ ভেঙে টুকরো করে নিয়ে গজনি নিজের শহরে বসিয়েছিলেন?
কেন তিনি বলেন: “I have destroyed the idol of the infidels and established the glory of Islam”?
২. ‘Many Voices of History’—শুধু যারা হিন্দু ধ্বংসকে নর্মালাইজ করে তাদের গলাগুলোই শুনেছেন? বইয়ের নাম ‘Many Voices’, অথচ:
স্থানীয় পাণ্ডা-পুরোহিতদের ভাষ্য?
রাজা-প্রজাদের যন্ত্রণার দলিল?
আঞ্চলিক কিংবদন্তি?
সবই বা তো বাদ গিয়েছে বা গুরুত্বহীন করে দেওয়া হয়েছে।
লেখিকা একটা কোরাস গাইতে ডেকেছেন, কিন্তু সব গায়কই এক দলের—বলুন তো, এটা কি সত্যিই বহুস্বর? না একটাই সুর, শুধু গলার জোর আলাদা?”
৩. ইসলামি আগ্রাসনকে রূপান্তর করা হয়েছে—'সাম্রাজ্যিক কৌশল'-এ! বইটি এক ধরনের soft-washing—
মুসলিম আক্রমণকারী মানেই বর্বর নন; তাঁরা ‘রাজনৈতিক প্রকল্প’ চালাতেন! সেটা সত্য হলেও প্রশ্ন হল:
কেন শুধুই মন্দির লক্ষ্য হতো?
কেন ইচ্ছাকৃত প্রতীক ধ্বংস চলতো?
কেন গজনির “হিন্দুদের বিরুদ্ধে জেহাদ” ঘোষণা লিপিবদ্ধ রয়েছে নিজস্ব ঐতিহাসিকদের লেখায়?
এইটা এমন হয়ে গেল না, কেউ বাড়িতে ঢুকে সবকিছু ভাঙচুর করল, আর আপনি বললেন—ওটা ওর ইনটেরিয়র ডিজাইন প্রজেক্ট ছিল।”
৪. সোমনাথের গৌরব ও বেদনা—এই বইতে নেই! থাপর বইতে সোমনাথের ইতিহাসকে যেভাবে উপস্থাপন করেছেন, তাতে কোনও আত্মার কান্না নেই, প্রতিরোধের গৌরব নেই, পুণ্যভূমির স্মৃতি নেই।
এটা শুধু একটি ক্লিনিকাল, ডিটারজেন্টে ধোয়া, বর্ণহীন ইতিহাস—যেখানে হিন্দু বেদনা নিষিদ্ধ, আর আক্রমণকারী নির্দোষ।
এই বই পড়ে মনে হয় না ইতিহাস পড়ছি, মনে হয় কাউকে বাঁচাতে defence evidence লেখা হচ্ছে।
উপসংহার: ইতিহাস না, এটা এক আদর্শগত প্রমাণ-নাটক: Thapar-এর লক্ষ্য নয় ইতিহাসের পূর্ণতা; বরং, ভারতীয় স্মৃতি ও ধর্মীয় ঐতিহ্যকে বিচ্ছিন্ন করা এক নতুন বয়ান দিয়ে। এটি এক ‘academic gaslighting’—যেখানে সোমনাথ ভেঙে যায় দ্বিতীয়বার, এইবার কলম দিয়ে।
এই বইকে ইতিহাস বলা যায় না। এটা সেই কাহিনি, যেখানে গর্ভগৃহে ঢুকে কেউ মাটির ওপর দাঁড়িয়ে বলে—‘এই জায়গাটা কি আগে ঘর ছিল?’
জঘন্য। তবুও পড়ুন। আসল খেলাটা ধরতেই পারবেন না এই বই না পড়লে।
Read
March 18, 2024Romila Thapar has been a valuable and constructive voice in Indian historiography and the practice of understanding Indian sources; she has helped us depart from two extremes of colonial historical tradition: of either infantilising South Asian material or treating them as potential annals of actual events. Somanatha seems to be a case-study of such a historiography in practice. It's a methodical book in the sense that very systematically the sources are made to converse with each other by way of first separating them and then unentangling slowly the narratives the echo but also obfuscate. Reading it is a rewarding experience for the diversity of visions it helps offer on a single "event" or object.
Perhaps the most critical insight of the book seems to be that far from Somanatha and its vandalism being the central object of the documents that refer to it, it is an aside, a sidebar for entirely different goals of these different texts. The texts almost always seem to be matter-of-factly about the shrine or in the case of Sanskrit inscriptions about the temple itself, entirely side-step the moment. The specifics are illuminating.
Yet in the midst of Thapar's political zeal, there are some subtle methodological issues. The first is: are all sources to be read in the same light? Can one expect to parse similar or parallel or broadly identical 'kinds' of information from each source? Sure they are 'historical' material, but can one make the same demand from them all? For example, is it in the nature and design of Jain chronicles to talk about Shaiva trauma? Or what kinds of historical information do Sanskrit sources actually provide? While in the conclusion Thapar of course says, "Each narrative has its own politics, and trying to unravel this becomes one explanation in its historiography," there is no enough of that effort in this book.
Following from this question, if the sources different in crucial structural ways, can they actually be made to converse with each other? Why then do we read lines such as "There is a contradiction between [Kanhadade's] version and the account as given by Barani"?
A consequence of the method is that there is actually some confusion about the exact position that the book is arguing against: is it that there was no epochal vandalism? Were all the later destructions themselves too mild or even perhaps untrue? Is it that the destruction of Somnath, however eventful, not a strong or traumatic memory? The goalposts seem to be shifting.
Perhaps the most critical insight of the book seems to be that far from Somanatha and its vandalism being the central object of the documents that refer to it, it is an aside, a sidebar for entirely different goals of these different texts. The texts almost always seem to be matter-of-factly about the shrine or in the case of Sanskrit inscriptions about the temple itself, entirely side-step the moment. The specifics are illuminating.
Yet in the midst of Thapar's political zeal, there are some subtle methodological issues. The first is: are all sources to be read in the same light? Can one expect to parse similar or parallel or broadly identical 'kinds' of information from each source? Sure they are 'historical' material, but can one make the same demand from them all? For example, is it in the nature and design of Jain chronicles to talk about Shaiva trauma? Or what kinds of historical information do Sanskrit sources actually provide? While in the conclusion Thapar of course says, "Each narrative has its own politics, and trying to unravel this becomes one explanation in its historiography," there is no enough of that effort in this book.
Following from this question, if the sources different in crucial structural ways, can they actually be made to converse with each other? Why then do we read lines such as "There is a contradiction between [Kanhadade's] version and the account as given by Barani"?
A consequence of the method is that there is actually some confusion about the exact position that the book is arguing against: is it that there was no epochal vandalism? Were all the later destructions themselves too mild or even perhaps untrue? Is it that the destruction of Somnath, however eventful, not a strong or traumatic memory? The goalposts seem to be shifting.
April 20, 2020
I happen to have the possession of the book for a few years now. The initial intrigue that had driven me to get the book, was diminished in subsequent times, as I barely managed to initiate reading it. Every time I contrived some patience to go through it, I would eventually render it to be a difficult read and put it down after a couple of pages. Finally, I ventured to through its analytical pages as it seized me with its outstandingly researched content.
While completing the final chapter of the book, in the gusty breeze of the afternoon, I could not help but contemplate to draw a parallel with the author, Romila Thapar and Richard Dawkins. Though one is a pioneer of evolutionary biology and the other of history, their methodology in writing seemed to be similar. Both are analytical to the brink of being offensive (allegedly).
There were ample viewpoints of the author on certain aspects of history or historiography, that offered a fresh perspective on murky past. As the title suggests, an even and unbiased presentation of the many voices of history can be read throughout the detailed chapters of the book. I still find the book to be a bit difficult for a regular reader, yet, it is worth the effort and time to read such a masterpiece.
While completing the final chapter of the book, in the gusty breeze of the afternoon, I could not help but contemplate to draw a parallel with the author, Romila Thapar and Richard Dawkins. Though one is a pioneer of evolutionary biology and the other of history, their methodology in writing seemed to be similar. Both are analytical to the brink of being offensive (allegedly).
There were ample viewpoints of the author on certain aspects of history or historiography, that offered a fresh perspective on murky past. As the title suggests, an even and unbiased presentation of the many voices of history can be read throughout the detailed chapters of the book. I still find the book to be a bit difficult for a regular reader, yet, it is worth the effort and time to read such a masterpiece.
June 14, 2025
I recently finished reading Romila Thapar’s Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History, and I must say it opened up a whole new way for me to think about a story I thought I already knew.
For a long time, Somnath has been presented as a simple story — a rich Hindu shrine destroyed by a Muslim king — a narrative often used to fuel communal tensions. But Thapar shows us it’s much more complex than that.
Using different sources — Sanskrit inscriptions, Arabic and Persian histories, and British interpretations — she piece by piece dismantles the black-and-white view of the past. She shows us Mahmud of Ghazni wasn't on some holy mission; his attack was a political move to conquer a rich center and assert power. Furthermore, the way this episode has been remembered and retold over the years says more about those framing the story than it does about the event itself.
I liked how Thapar lets us hear all these different “voices”— from priests and villagers to chroniclers — instead of simplifying it into a single story. It made me realize that history is messy, multilayered, and often manipulated to serve present agendas.
For anyone who wants to move past the myths and appreciate the rich, human side of our past, this book is a wonderful, insightful read.
For a long time, Somnath has been presented as a simple story — a rich Hindu shrine destroyed by a Muslim king — a narrative often used to fuel communal tensions. But Thapar shows us it’s much more complex than that.
Using different sources — Sanskrit inscriptions, Arabic and Persian histories, and British interpretations — she piece by piece dismantles the black-and-white view of the past. She shows us Mahmud of Ghazni wasn't on some holy mission; his attack was a political move to conquer a rich center and assert power. Furthermore, the way this episode has been remembered and retold over the years says more about those framing the story than it does about the event itself.
I liked how Thapar lets us hear all these different “voices”— from priests and villagers to chroniclers — instead of simplifying it into a single story. It made me realize that history is messy, multilayered, and often manipulated to serve present agendas.
For anyone who wants to move past the myths and appreciate the rich, human side of our past, this book is a wonderful, insightful read.
April 14, 2023
I read a few of the critiques of the books that started with leftist-Marxist & ended at conspiracy against India. The problem with most of the criticism is either they’re coming from people who’ve definitely not read the book or from some who’re quoting certain passages without the context and sharing some ‘facts’ without ascertaining what is the source.
The fact is the book is well-researched with an elaborate bibliography to support it and attempts to break the myths associated with Somnath by tapping contemporary literature from 3 prominent sources (Turkish-Persian, Sanskrit, Jain) along with a study of Rajput & other oral histories. This all is also set in the context of the colonial India & the various objectives that British administration & hence writers on India set out to achieve.
Nowhere has Romila Thapar denied the raid, nor has she whitewashed iconoclasm of the Islamic invasion. All she has attempted and with research to create a more realistic version of the history as different from created memories.
Read the book, it’s an interesting read of history and judge for yourself whether all the malevolent criticism is justified.
The fact is the book is well-researched with an elaborate bibliography to support it and attempts to break the myths associated with Somnath by tapping contemporary literature from 3 prominent sources (Turkish-Persian, Sanskrit, Jain) along with a study of Rajput & other oral histories. This all is also set in the context of the colonial India & the various objectives that British administration & hence writers on India set out to achieve.
Nowhere has Romila Thapar denied the raid, nor has she whitewashed iconoclasm of the Islamic invasion. All she has attempted and with research to create a more realistic version of the history as different from created memories.
Read the book, it’s an interesting read of history and judge for yourself whether all the malevolent criticism is justified.
April 13, 2019
Dr. Romila Thapar tells not just the history of Somanatha temple and Mahmud of Gazni, but also how did a narrative of Hindu - Muslim enimity was created in 19th century by colonial historians and used by the religious-nationalists in the 20th century.
Dr Thapar analyses texts from all sources and relies on archaeological evidences to form her arguments.
Dr Thapar analyses texts from all sources and relies on archaeological evidences to form her arguments.
December 22, 2018
Sane voice among the cacophony of pretend historians with no training. The British possibly cooking up a story of bringing back gates of Somanatha temples, as part of their divide and rule policy, is a new angle, I hadnt come across earlier.
September 22, 2023
A fairly tedious read, with no discernable conclusion to the central question. It seems to be a roundabout way of justifying a particular idealogy instead of just getting the facts right. But definitely worth reading, since Ms Thapar is a good writer.
March 17, 2020
By quoting & citing various sources the author convincingly calls the bluff of the tendentious accounts of the historical event by the saffron brigade!
June 23, 2020
Reading of this book helped to learn on ways to learn history.
September 19, 2024
Systematic breaking of memory and identity. Mahmud desecrated the idol and now these so called intellectuals are diluting the fact drop by drop.
February 21, 2021
A fantastic piece of research work, by one of the eminent historian of India. In this book, she analyses the history of the Somnath temple through various historical records like, Budhist and Jain texts, Persian manuscripts, Indian temple chronicles, and the texts left behind by the dynasties of the time.
Look out for everywhere she says that this is a probable explanation, meaning nothing can be told for certain but these alternative conjectures can be drawn from the evidence, thereby explaining also the falsity of current narratives that have been going around concerning the Somnath temple, due to the blatantly wrong and ugly interpretation of the work to suit contemporary narrative needs in Politics and other spheres of the society.
Look out for everywhere she says that this is a probable explanation, meaning nothing can be told for certain but these alternative conjectures can be drawn from the evidence, thereby explaining also the falsity of current narratives that have been going around concerning the Somnath temple, due to the blatantly wrong and ugly interpretation of the work to suit contemporary narrative needs in Politics and other spheres of the society.
December 8, 2015
The book is very relevant in the world today when the debate of religious intolerance is of growing concern. Romila Thapar has brilliantly summarized the description of the same event: the raid of Somanath Temple in 1026 AD by Mahmud of Ghazni by various sources at various eras and how each source molded the description of the event to suit its own political agenda and the manipulation and molding continues even today, 2000 years after. Many people have reviewed the book as a slow read but I had finished the book in about 2 days, maybe because I was reading for a book discussion but also because I found the book very interesting and also amusing. It is particularly amusing when British colonialists invent the part about the "Somnatha gates" and everyone believes the same without reading any other account of the event and Ranjit Singh demands the gates without even knowing the gates under discussion are for which temple. After reading the book I understand Satanic Verses better and now will also reread Moonstone by Wilkie Collins as I now know that plot as well, thanks to this book. Would strongly recommend it to anyone who is interested in history.
August 10, 2012
Prose is Romila Thaper like; what else one can say? Her style of trying to be empirical and staying away from popular historical myths makes reading her at time excruciating. But she always has a counter point that one can ruminate on.
Now I'm left to wonder if Mahmoud of Ghazni is not that big a villain as he is made out to be in the popular history of India. But why would British, merchants and tyrants, contrive to vilify some one of that distant past. Their gains are difficult to fathom.
Yes her views set you thinking...
Now I'm left to wonder if Mahmoud of Ghazni is not that big a villain as he is made out to be in the popular history of India. But why would British, merchants and tyrants, contrive to vilify some one of that distant past. Their gains are difficult to fathom.
Yes her views set you thinking...
December 30, 2014
This book is specifically for people interested in reading history. The author puts the facts in front of you from various texts dated around the time the events occur and then it is left to your intellect to believe what happened.
Brilliantly written bereft of any emotional pleas. completely factual.
Brilliantly written bereft of any emotional pleas. completely factual.
Currently reading
April 1, 2011great ...
December 15, 2012
Pretty damn good
December 29, 2024
as always, thapar remains a nightmare to the sangh
Read
March 17, 2018Romila Thapar’s 2004 work, Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History, revisits a seminal event in the historiography of India, where Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna raided the Somanatha temple in 1026 CE. Until recent times, the event was viewed as marking the beginning of an epic conflict between a native Hindu civilization and a foreign Muslim invader. Used today to fuel this sentiment in various spheres of society (i.e. religious, political, cultural) Thapar’s central mission is to reject this view of history.
Thapar approaches her thesis by exploring the inter-relationships between the event and the historiographies that grew around it by placing the narratives in a historical context. She creates a dialogue between six sources (Turko-Persian, Sanskrit inscriptions from Somanatha, Jaina biographies, epics from Rajput courts, popular oral tradition, British orientalists, and India nationalists) by juxtaposing their findings and highlighting the similarities and differences. She does this because she believes inter alia that the dominance of the Turko-Persian narrative, which lent itself most availably to the methods of the orientalists, portrayed a very biased account. Thapar also attributes the erroneous interpretation of Somanatha to James Mill’s periodization of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and British in which a monolithic Hindu nation was invaded by Muslims whose unwanted presence was finally purged by Europe 800 years later.
Thapar finds this narrative to be absurd and argues it in various ways. In the light of Muslim traders from the Arabian Peninsula that had long established trade networks close to Somanatha, she points to the fact that the reason Somanatha declined was not due to continued attacks by Muslims but rather the eventual decline of trade in the region. She writes, “Where the prosperity of a religious centre is tied to trade, the decline in trade is bound to affect its affluence” (34). She also presents the long history of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Hindus and the intermingling of religious practices. Additionally, she investigates Mahmud’s true motives for raiding the temple. She does not doubt that Mahmud was a devout Sunni Muslim, but she places the raid in the context of the Ghaznavid Empire. Seeing that Mahmud was engaged in expanding the borders of his empire, monetizing temple wealth as a mechanism for converting loot to fuel military expansion throughout the empire. She does, however, mention that his iconoclasm was due also to religious reasons, yet he also wanted to portray himself as a defender of Islam (the destroyer of the idol al-Lat) to the caliphate in Baghdad in order to secure his western borders. Later on, Thapar alleges, the roots of Muslim conquest began in Mughal times when the emperors were legitimizing their own imperial campaigns in the subcontinent as a campaign to regain Muslim territory. What may have been seen as Turkish invasion of Chalukian territory began to be seen as a Muslim invasion of a Hindu land. Notwithstanding examples of religious coexistence, Thapar accurately states, “the religions of the elite tend to emphasize their boundaries, whereas religious expression at a wider level synthesizes belief and practice and has no problems in transgressing boundaries” (161).
What I found most convincing in Thapar’s research is the conspicuous absence of the Somanatha temple raid in the Sanskrit sources. Indeed, the theory of a Hindu trauma created by this event remains an enigma. I believe Thapar puts the majority of the blame on colonial scholarship for inserting it into Indian memory. A proof that I find most convincing is the translation of Elliot and Dawson of ‘Utbi’s text where instead of stating how Mahmud vowed to visit India every year they translated it as “the Sultan vowed to undertake a holy war to Hind every year” (200). Thapar contextualizes Muslim antagonism by the British as part of the greater conflict Europe had with the Muslim world. It may be that the orientalists were merely a product of their times and continued to perpetuate the narrative of a clash of civilizations. Still, I can’t help but question why Indians, in attempting to make sense of British colonization, accepted this history wholesale. Surely, Indians must have known that their relationships could not be reduced to two general categories. To this question, Thapar brings up the concept of memory and amnesia, which she defines as a social construct based on communal agreement. She writes, “It has been argued that attempts are made to create collective memory by kneading the past into new forms and claiming these as legitimate memory. Such claims are created to endorse the attitudes of the present and are then used to restructure the past to justify the present” (207).
The question I have is: Why did Indians choose to forget not only the numerous accounts of harmony between Muslims and Hindus but also their more nuanced identities? The danger of such generalization annuls the reality of Hindus attacking Hindu temples and Muslims allying with Hindus to attacks other Muslims and feeds into the nationalist agenda of hegemonic rule. Finally, if the narratives of the Turks, Mughals, British, and nationalists along with their respective constructions of memory can all be better understood in the context of their meta-histories, what variable are influence Thapar’s revisionist rendition?
Thapar approaches her thesis by exploring the inter-relationships between the event and the historiographies that grew around it by placing the narratives in a historical context. She creates a dialogue between six sources (Turko-Persian, Sanskrit inscriptions from Somanatha, Jaina biographies, epics from Rajput courts, popular oral tradition, British orientalists, and India nationalists) by juxtaposing their findings and highlighting the similarities and differences. She does this because she believes inter alia that the dominance of the Turko-Persian narrative, which lent itself most availably to the methods of the orientalists, portrayed a very biased account. Thapar also attributes the erroneous interpretation of Somanatha to James Mill’s periodization of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim and British in which a monolithic Hindu nation was invaded by Muslims whose unwanted presence was finally purged by Europe 800 years later.
Thapar finds this narrative to be absurd and argues it in various ways. In the light of Muslim traders from the Arabian Peninsula that had long established trade networks close to Somanatha, she points to the fact that the reason Somanatha declined was not due to continued attacks by Muslims but rather the eventual decline of trade in the region. She writes, “Where the prosperity of a religious centre is tied to trade, the decline in trade is bound to affect its affluence” (34). She also presents the long history of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Hindus and the intermingling of religious practices. Additionally, she investigates Mahmud’s true motives for raiding the temple. She does not doubt that Mahmud was a devout Sunni Muslim, but she places the raid in the context of the Ghaznavid Empire. Seeing that Mahmud was engaged in expanding the borders of his empire, monetizing temple wealth as a mechanism for converting loot to fuel military expansion throughout the empire. She does, however, mention that his iconoclasm was due also to religious reasons, yet he also wanted to portray himself as a defender of Islam (the destroyer of the idol al-Lat) to the caliphate in Baghdad in order to secure his western borders. Later on, Thapar alleges, the roots of Muslim conquest began in Mughal times when the emperors were legitimizing their own imperial campaigns in the subcontinent as a campaign to regain Muslim territory. What may have been seen as Turkish invasion of Chalukian territory began to be seen as a Muslim invasion of a Hindu land. Notwithstanding examples of religious coexistence, Thapar accurately states, “the religions of the elite tend to emphasize their boundaries, whereas religious expression at a wider level synthesizes belief and practice and has no problems in transgressing boundaries” (161).
What I found most convincing in Thapar’s research is the conspicuous absence of the Somanatha temple raid in the Sanskrit sources. Indeed, the theory of a Hindu trauma created by this event remains an enigma. I believe Thapar puts the majority of the blame on colonial scholarship for inserting it into Indian memory. A proof that I find most convincing is the translation of Elliot and Dawson of ‘Utbi’s text where instead of stating how Mahmud vowed to visit India every year they translated it as “the Sultan vowed to undertake a holy war to Hind every year” (200). Thapar contextualizes Muslim antagonism by the British as part of the greater conflict Europe had with the Muslim world. It may be that the orientalists were merely a product of their times and continued to perpetuate the narrative of a clash of civilizations. Still, I can’t help but question why Indians, in attempting to make sense of British colonization, accepted this history wholesale. Surely, Indians must have known that their relationships could not be reduced to two general categories. To this question, Thapar brings up the concept of memory and amnesia, which she defines as a social construct based on communal agreement. She writes, “It has been argued that attempts are made to create collective memory by kneading the past into new forms and claiming these as legitimate memory. Such claims are created to endorse the attitudes of the present and are then used to restructure the past to justify the present” (207).
The question I have is: Why did Indians choose to forget not only the numerous accounts of harmony between Muslims and Hindus but also their more nuanced identities? The danger of such generalization annuls the reality of Hindus attacking Hindu temples and Muslims allying with Hindus to attacks other Muslims and feeds into the nationalist agenda of hegemonic rule. Finally, if the narratives of the Turks, Mughals, British, and nationalists along with their respective constructions of memory can all be better understood in the context of their meta-histories, what variable are influence Thapar’s revisionist rendition?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews