Nailing Marxist Lies – Exposing the Myth of Hindu Onslaught on Buddhism

via H Balakrishnan published on September 24, 2010

Dear Sir,

Reference the  – NRI JIHADI ‘KHILADI’ & ‘M.I.T.LIBRARIAN’ – Omar Khalidi’s –
” Disrespect for religion in demolition “ – (TNIE – 21 Sep).

After the publication of Aditya Sinha’s “ Demolitions, 1528 to 9/11 “ – (TNIE – 11 Sep) – many of us ‘anticipated’ a flurry of ‘secular balancing’ Opinions, much like in the aftermath of the publication of Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s ” A strategy to deter terrorism “ – (TNIE – 28 Dec 2008). Aditya Sinha and his ‘secular cohorts’ haven’t disappointed!! Talk of ‘History repeating itself’ !! So we have a lesson in ‘Harmony’ by ‘MAN HARMONY’ in the TNIE of 19 Sep – ” Hindutva and the tale of two mosques “, the ‘constant waffle, prattle & tantrums of the Kashmir Valley Jihadi’ – Firdous Syed (who incidentally is a consumate practioner of the Koranic injunction of ‘TAQIYYA’), and now – the M.I.T Librarian !! Cheers Sir !!

That apart, the ‘Jihadi Khiladi’, in his opening passage itself stated the following:

 (a) – ” Hindutva propagandists see temple destruction in stark communal terms, perceiving such vandalism as straightforward evidence of Muslim iconoclasm; 

(b) – ” Academic historians, on the other hand, view that temple demolition in India is not an original Muslim contribution to Indian history. First, long before Muslims arrived, various kings destroyed each other’s dynastic deities as part of post-conquest delegitimisation of the foe”.

My reading of history in the recent past tells me that whenever the history of the many thousands of temple destructions by Muslims is discussed, the ‘secularists’ – [ like this ‘M.I.T. JIHADI ] 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”.

Let us first take the ‘secularists’ favourite – Hindu Iconoclasm against Buddhists. A very famous and well respected Indian had written:

” There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘But’. The word ‘But,’ as everybody knows, is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not many people, however, know that the derivation of the word ‘But’ is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia….”

This famous Indian continued
: ” The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They raised to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 AD, Mr. Vincent Smith says, ” …. Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the ‘shaven headed Brahmans’, that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. ‘It was
discovered,’ we are told, ‘that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.’ “Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India….”

Did a ‘Hindutva Communalist write the foregoing? The writer was none other than
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar !!


It also so happens, that (late) Sita Ram Goel, painstaking research from Islamic sources,had published the classic:

“Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them? – VOLS I & II.  Goel held an  MA in History from Delhi University (ca. 1944), had actually practised history, writing on Communism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. He was fluent in Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, English and also elementary Persian. In stark contrast, ‘Eminent Historian’ & ‘Padma Bhushan’ Romila Thapar, doesn’t know Sanskrit, and yet her speciality is ‘Ancient India’ !!  Bluntly put- her scholarship IS from ‘seconadary sources’!! And that is the ‘academic historians’ that our ‘M.I.T. JIHADI’ is referring to !! CHEERS!!

In “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them? – VOL: II “,  Sita Ram Goel qouted epigraphic and literary evidences from Islamic sources to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that the temple destruction by the Islamic invaders was ISLAMIC ICONOCLASM. To cite a few examples:

(a) Epigraphic Evidence:

” We give below some instances of inscriptions discovered and copied quite some time ago but not published so far:

    1. An Arabic inscription was discovered in the Jãmi‘ Masjid at Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh in 1953-54. It says that the idol was broken and the mosque constructed by Sher Muhammad Khãn Ghãzî in AH 1051 (AD 1641-42). Another inscription in the same place says that this Sher Muhammad Khãn was given the title of Fîrûz Jang by Sultãn Abdullãh Qutb Shãh of Golconda in AH 1055 (AD 1645-46). The inscription has not been published so far.

    2. A Persian inscription on the entrance gateway of a mosque at Nuh in the Gurgaon District of Haryana states that the foundation of this mosque was laid by Bahãdur Khãn Nãhar in the reign of Muhammad Shãh, son of Fîrûz Shãh (Tughlaq), from the materials of a Hindu temple in village Sainthali where Hindus used to assemble in large numbers every year. The qãzî of Nauganwa made a representation to Bahãdur Khãn Nãhar who destroyed the temple and completed the mosque in AH 803 (AD 1400). This inscription has yet to be published though it was discovered in 1963-64.

    3. Another Persian inscription discovered in the Jãmi‘ Masjid at Ritpur in the Amraoti District of Maharashtra proclaims that the mosque which was originally built by Aurangzeb on the site of a Hindu temple, having become desolate through passage of time, was reconstructed in AH 1295 (AD 1878) with the help of contributions raised by the local Muslims. This inscription discovered in 1964-65 has not been published so far.

    4. An inscription discovered in 1978-79 on the facade of the Jãmi‘ Masjid in Mahalla Sunhat at Balasore in Orissa states die in AH 1079 (AD 1668-69) a mob of Muslim mendicants (faqîrs) led by Tãlib stormed and set fire to the temple of Šrî ChaNdî which was being resorted to by the Hindus. Five years later, the local faujdãr built the mosque on the same site. This inscription, too, remains unpublished.

    5. An inscription in the Jãmi‘ Masjid at Tadpatri in Andhra Pradesh records that the mosque was constructed on the site of a temple by Mahmûd for offering prayers to Allãh. The inscription dated AH 1107 (AD 1695) was discovered in 1980-81. It is not yet published. We do not know anything about Mahmûd who performed this pious deed in the reign of Aurangzeb.

[Chapter 6 -The Epigraphic Evidence]

(b) Literary Evidence:

Sita Ram Goel wrote: ” Islamic literary sources provide far more extensive evidence of temple destruction by the Muslim invaders of India in medieval times. They also cover a larger area, from Sinkiang and Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, and from the Seistan province of present-day Iran in the West to Assam in the East. As we wade through this evidence, we can visualise how this vast area, which was for long the cradle of Hindu culture, came to be literally littered with the ruins of temples and monasteries belonging to all schools of Sanãtana Dharma-Bauddha, Jaina, Å aiva, Šãkta, VaishNava and the rest. Archaeological explorations and excavations in modern times have proved unmistakably that most of the mosques, mazãrs, ziãrats and dargãhs which were built in this area in medieval times, stood on the sites of and were made from the materials of deliberately demolished Hindu monuments”. To cite a few examples:

(1) “Tãrîkhu’l-Hind” : The author, Abû Rîhan Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Bîrûnî al-Khwãrizmî, was born in about AD 970-71. He was an astronomer, geometrician, historian and logician. He was sent to Ghazni in an embassy from the Sultãn of Khwãrizm. On invitation from Sultãn Mahmûd of Ghazni (AD 997-1030) he entered his service, travelled to India and spent forty years in the country, chiefly in the Punjab. He learnt Sanskrit and translated some works from that language into Arabic. His history treats of the literature and learning of the Hindus at the commencement of the eleventh century.

He wrote:

” Sultãn Mahmûd of Ghazni (AD 997-1030) :

Thanesar (Haryana) :

The city of Taneshar is highly venerated by Hindus. The idol of that place is called Cakrasvamin, i.e. the owner of the cakra, a weapon which we have already described. It is of bronze, and is nearly the size of a man. It is now lying in the hippodrome in Ghazna, together with the Lord of Somanath, which is a representation of the penis of Mahadeva, called Linga”.

Somnath (Gujarat) :

The linga he raised was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natha means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by the Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! – AH 416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin,  with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels, and embroidered garments. Part of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with the Cakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somanath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean  them from dirt and wet.”

(2) “Miftãhu’l-Futûh” : The author, Amîr Khusrû, was born at Delhi in 1253. His father occupied high positions in the reigns of Sultãn Shamsu’d-Dîn Iltutmish (AD 1210-1236) and his successors. His mother was the daughter of another dignitary under Sultãn Ghiyãsu’d-Dîn Balban (AD 1266-1286). He himself became a companion of Balban’s son, Prince Muhammad, and stayed at Multãn till the prince was killed in a battle with the Mongols. Reputed to be the dearest disciple of Shykh Nizãmu’d-Dîn Auliyã‘, he became the lick-spittle of whoever came out victorious in the contest for the throne at Delhi. He became a court poet of Balban’s successor, Sultãn Kaiqubãd (AD 288-1290) and wrote his Qirãnu’s S‘ãdaîn in the Sultãn’s praise in AD 1289. Next, he joined Sultãn Jalãlu’d-Dîn Khaljî (AD 1290-1296) as a court poet after the latter murdered Kaiqubãd. He wrote in 1291 the Miftãhu‘l-Futûh which describes Jalãlu’d-Dîn’s victories.

Sultãn ‘Alãu’d-Dîn Khaljî (AD 1296-1316):

Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh) ;

“When he advanced from the capital of Karra, the Hindûs, in alarm, descended into the earth like ants. He departed towards the garden of Behãr to dye that soil with blood as red as tulip. He cleared the road to Ujjain of vile wretches, and created consternation in Bhîlsãn. When he effected his conquests in that country, he drew out of the river the idols which had been concealed in it.”66 

Devagiri (Maharashtra) : “But see the mercy with which he regarded the brokenhearted, for, after seizing the rãî, he set him free again. He destroyed the temples of the idolaters, and erected pulpits and arches for mosques.” 

(REF: –
[ Chapter 7 – The Literary Evidence]

Sita Ram Goel concluded : ” If our citations prove anything and prove it beyond a shadow of doubt, it is this that in doing what they did to Hindu temples the heroes of Islam were inspired by their religion and religion alone. They cannot be blamed if the plunder which occasionally preceded the destruction of temples was viewed by them as a well-deserved reward for doing service to Allah and his Last Prophet; they knew what the Qur’ãn and the Sunnah had prescribed in very clear language and, therefore, had a clean conscience. It is a different matter altogether that their religion provided, more often than not, a cover, or an a posteriori justification as Professor Mohammed Habib would like to put it, for some of the basest motives in human nature and attracted to its standards some of the worst hoodlums and gangsters and blood-thirsty bandits that the world has known. The fact that these despicable characters have been made to masquerade as Mujãhids and Ghãzîs and Shahîds and Sultãns and Sufis by Muslim historians can hoodwink no one except those who either do not know the facts or have the same moral standards as those of Islam”.

Our Marxist professors and other pandits of Secularism are very much mistaken when they discover or invent economic and/or political motives for explaining away the crimes committed by Islam. Either they have remained totally ignorant of what the Theology of Islam prescribes vis-a-vis the unbelievers, their women and children, their properties, their homelands, their religious teachers, and their places of worship; or their deep-seated animus against everything Hindu has pushed them into the camp of those who are out to destroy everything for which this country has been held in high esteem down the ages. We shall, give them the benefit of doubt and assume that their ignorance of the Theology of Islam rather than their anti-Hindu animus is the culprit”.

About these ‘academic historians’, Arun Shourie wrote in his damning expose: “Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their FRAUD” : ” Thus, they suppress facts, they concoct others, they suppress what an author has said on one matter even as they insist that what he has said on another be taken as gospel truth. And when anyone attempts to point out what had in fact happened, they raise a shriek: a conspiracy to rewrite history, they shout, a plot to distort history, they scream. But they are the ones who had distorted it in the first place — by suppressing the truth, by planting falsehoods. And these “theses” of their’s are recent concoctions “.  However, these ‘academic historinas’ provide the much needed ‘OXYGEN’ for the likes of this ‘M.I.T. JIHADI’ !!

The next issue is the one pertaining to ‘Hindu Iconoclasm’.

Arun Shourie, in his above quoted book wrote: But today the fashion is to ascribe the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus, to the destruction of their temples by the Hindus.One point is that the Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate the concoction. In one typical instance, three inscriptions were cited. The indefatigable Sita Ram Goel looked them up. Two of the inscriptions had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. And the third told a story which had the opposite import than the one which the Marxist historian had insinuated: a Jain king had himself taken the temple from Jain priests and given it to the Shaivites because the former had failed to live up to their promise. Goel repeatedly asked the historian to point to any additional evidence or to elucidate how the latter had suppressed the import that the inscription in its entirety conveyed. He waited in vain. The revealing exchange is set out in Goel’s monograph, “Stalinist ‘Historians’ Spread the Big Lie.”

” Marxists cite only two other instances of Hindus having destroyed Buddhist temples. These too it turns out yield to completely contrary explanations. Again Marxists have been asked repeatedly to explain the construction they have been circulating — to no avail. Equally important, Sita Ram Goel invited them to cite any Hindu text which orders Hindus to break the places of worship of other religions — as the Bible does, as a pile of Islamic manuals does. He has asked them to name a single person who has been honoured by the Hindus because he broke such places -– the way Islamic historians and lore have glorified every Muslim ruler and invader who did so. A snooty silence has been the only response “.

And here is what (late) Sita Ram Goel ‘challenged the ‘Eminent Historians’ to prove and cite ‘evidence’ in his letter to ‘Eminent Historian’ and ‘The High Priestess of SECULAR HISTORY WRITING’, and a ‘PADMA BHUSHAN’ to boot, as read in his monograph: ” Stalinist ‘Historians’ Spread the Big Lie “:

1. A list of epigraphs which record the destruction of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines by any Hindu, at any time;

2. Citations from Hindu literary sources describing destruction of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines by
any Hindu, at any time;

3. The Hindu theology which says or even suggests that non-Hindu places of worship should be destroyed or desecrated or plundered, or which hails such acts as pious or meritorious;

4. A list of Hindu kings or commanders whom Hindus have hailed as heroes for desecrating or destroying or converting
into Hindu places of worship any Buddhist or Jain monuments or Animist shrines;

5. A list of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines which have been desecrated or destroyed or converted into Hindu places of worship in the remote or the recent past;

6. The names and places of Hindu monuments which stand on the sites occupied earlier by Buddhist or Jain monuments or Animist shrines, or which have materials from the latter embedded in their masonry;

7. Names of Buddhist, Jain and Animist leaders or organizations who have claimed that such and such Hindu monuments are usurpations, and demanded their restoration to the original occupants;

8. Names of Hindu leaders and organizations who have resisted any demand made by Buddhists or Jains or Animists for restoration of the latter’s places of worship, or called for legislation which will maintain the status quo, or cried “Hinduism in danger”, or staged street riots in support of their usurpations.

” We think that this sort of concrete evidence alone cane decide “the question of the limits to the logic of restoration  of religious sites”. There seems to be no other way. Sweeping generalizations based on slender or dubious evidence are no substitute for hard facts”.

” If the professors fail to come out with answers to questions posed by us, and to present the evidence in support of their statements, we shall be forced to conclude that far from being serious academicians, they are cynical politicians hawking ad hoc or plausible explanations in the service of a party line. In fact, we shall be justified in saying that they are not Marxists but Stalinists. Marxism is a serious system of thought which offers consistent explanations. Stalinism, on the other hand, is an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi in pursuit of a particular end”.

For all his labours, Goel noted: ” I have not received even an acknowledgement of this letter from Professor Thapar, leave alone any comments on the points raised by me. Her silence has left me sad, for I was looking forward to a fruitful dialogue”.  Arun Shourie’s “SNOOTY SILENCE” !!

And, here is historian Meenakshi Jain’s, daughter of (late) Girilal Jain, former Editor of TOI, and sister of well known journalist Sandhya Jain, take on these ‘Eminences’:

” Indian Marxists, notwithstanding their claims to originality, have always been faithful followers of Western intellectual trends, often long after these were dated in the west. Thus, well after Western academics expounded upon European feudalism, Indian Marxists continue to search for point-by-point parallels between post-Gupta India and the West. Similarly the once-in-vogue notion of ‘imagined’ communities continues to bewitch our Marxist brethren who remain committed to fitting the history of the subcontinent to this maxim. Only the western rethinking on old patriotisms underpinning the new nationalisms has yet to win the
allegiance of Indian Marxists”.

” Romila Thapar’s “Somanatha, The Many Voices of a History” (Penguin 2004), represents one such attempt to reinvent the past. Inverting remembered history, Thapar dismisses notions of Hindu trauma over Islamic iconoclasm as a later-day fabrication. Rather, she alleges, in medieval times Hindu kings often vandalized temples and images, even if they did not surpass the Muslim record in this respect. Contemporary Hindu sources are silent about Mahmud’s attack on Somanatha, she assert, because “the looting of a temple (was) not such an extraordinary event, given that some Hindu rulers also attacked the temple of those they had conquered, or in order to confiscate the wealth of the temple.”

Thapar however ignores the pertinent fact that the alleged attacks by Hindu kings on images and temples did not rest upon any shastric commandment. In the few known incidents when images were taken away from enemy kings, the Hindu ruler honoured the idols thus acquired and built stately temples for them. As for the so-called Hindu destruction of Buddhist and Jain places of worship, even the evidence for such acts is vague and unconvincing. Strangely for a historian, Thapar takes no cognizance of the Prophet smashing 360 idols at Kaba and the Quranic injunction: ” Fight them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion is supreme”.  Artificially insisting that political and economic motivations superseded iconoclastic compulsions, she never explains why all Muslim (and not just Turk) attacks on temples always resulted in the desecration of idols. Indeed, Arab literature on Sind and Hind is obsessed with idolatry. The Arab rulers of Sind even sent cartloads of idols to Baghdad in lieu of revenue. The Turkish assault on Hindu idols was more thorough, as their Indian encounter was lengthier than that of the Arabs. Iconoclasm, as Thapar well knows, was a feature of Islamic polity till its very end; few rulers were an exception to this rule”.


An oft cited example of ‘Hindu Iconoclasm’ by these ‘Marxist Eminences’ and the ‘JIHADIS’ is ‘King Harsha of Kashmir’.

The Belgian historian Dr. Koenraad Elst quotes from the primary source of Kashmir History – ” Kalhana’s Rajatarangini” ” Harsha or Harshadeva of Kashmir (r.1089-1111) has been called the “Nero of Kashmir”, and this “because of his cruelty. He is described by Kalhana as having looted and desecrated most Hindu and Buddhist temples in Kashmir, partly through an office which he had created, viz. the “officer for despoiling god-temples”. 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”.

“Harsha was a fellow-traveller: not yet a full convert to Islam (he still ate pork, as per Rajatarangini 7:1149), but quite adapted to the Islamic ways, for “he ever fostered with money the Turks, who were his centurions” (7:1149). 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 (enumerated in 7:1096-1098, two of them Buddhist) 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.” (7:1095)”

” So there you have it: “the Turk king Harsha”. Far from representing a separate Hindu tradition of iconoclasm, 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 “.

” And 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. Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana’s testimony in the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source. Or she simply hasn’t read Kalhana’s text in the first place. Either way, she has been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana’s testimony even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana”.



As for the rest of this ‘JIHADI KHILADI’S’ WAFFLE – CONTEMPT -  THY NAME !!



Welcome to Haindava Keralam! Register for Free or Login as a privileged HK member to enjoy auto-approval of your comments and to receive periodic updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

5 × five =


Latest Articles from Divisive Agenda

Did You Know?