What Did Muslim Sultan And Hindu King Of Kashmir Have In Common — They Were Both Turuksha

One of the easiest and laziest tropes used to erase Islamic era of Indian history is to muddle the understanding of the medieval era.

The oft repeated gaslighting technique perfected by Romila Thapar school of fakery is to peddle a lie that entire medieval era everywhere in the world was violent therefore both Hindu kings and Muslim kings were equally cruel and heartless.  

Since all medieval kings were equally blood thirsty, there is no reason to believe Hindus were persecuted for their religion. Islam according to these establishment historians arrived peacefully in India and thrived without any great resistance.

Hence Islamic rule was not an occupying force in India. This has been fed to Indians so effectively that Hindu genocides during medieval era have all been forgotten.

Nowhere has this trope been applied more successfully than in Kashmir.

Marxist historians regurgitated each other and all came to the same conclusion — Muslim rule came to Kashmir peacefully and local population converted without any coercion.

Historians have gone to the extent of denying any religion-based persecution and blaming all atrocities on the ‘nature of the medieval era’.

A video published on The Print website founded by well-known journalist Shekhar Gupta is an extension of these often-regurgitated lazy tropes.

Anirudh Kanisetti in the video titled “What do a Hindu King and a Muslim sultan have in common? Both looted Kashmir’s temples” is an extension of this gaslighting technique employed by establishment historians.

Kanisetti claims to use primary sources but has very little understanding of how to apply the text in its correct context.

A glaring mistake he makes right at the outset is attributing Zain Rajatarangini to Pandit Jonaraja. Zain Rajatarangini was authored by Srivara and not by Jonaraja. There are multiple Rajataranginis and it is important to attribute each one to the correct author.

Rajatarangini is the unbroken chain of history told in poetry by five great historians of Kashmir. Kalhana, Jonaraja, Srivara, Prajyabhatt and Sukha.

The crux of the video is that Kashmir’s Hindu kings also looted temples and hence both Hindu era and Muslim era were somehow equal in persecution and therefore medieval era is too “complex” to understand and we should leave it at that.

In support of his argument, Kanisetti gives example of one solitary Hindu king who is said to have looted temples. His name is King Harsha and he ruled Kashmir from 1089-1101 CE.

His only source of information is multiple Rajataranginis which he later in the video dismisses as a biased account. How is it that Rajatarangini gives correct account of King Harsha but is exaggerated when talking about atrocities committed by Muslim rulers?  

Either all of it is biased or none of it is biased.

In this essay, I will briefly go over the history of Islamic era in Kashmir and explain “intent” of persecution that is common amongst all Muslim rulers of Kashmir that led to continual genocide of indigenous Kashmiri Pandits.

First it is important to understand ‘intent’ as defined in genocide studies.  The role of intent is a fundamental aspect of understanding and analysing genocidal acts.

Intent, in this context, refers to the deliberate and systematic nature of the actions undertaken with the aim of destroying, in whole or in part, a particular group based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, or other defining characteristics.

Intent plays a crucial role in the legal definition of genocide, as outlined in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

According to the convention, genocide is defined as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Thus, proving the existence of intent is essential in establishing that genocide has occurred and in holding perpetrators accountable under international law.

Intent helps distinguish genocide from other forms of mass violence or human rights abuses. While genocidal acts may involve widespread killings, forced displacement, sexual violence, and other atrocities, what sets genocide apart is the specific intent to destroy a particular group.

This distinguishes genocide from crimes against humanity or war crimes, which may lack the element of genocidal intent. Examining intent provides insights into the motivations behind genocidal acts and the broader socio-political contexts in which they occur.

Understanding why perpetrators target specific groups and what ideologies or beliefs drive their actions is crucial for historical analysis. Intent can also help identify patterns of discrimination, hatred, and dehumanisation that precede genocidal violence.

When analysing King Harsha and Sultan Sikandar Butshikan it is important to understand the intent of their actions. Pandit Jonaraja, author of Dwitya Rajatarangini explains ‘intent’ in the following verse.

turuskadarsane bhaktya natu dvesena dvijan|

vyaplavayadatascasmin hatva na prajagalbhire| 370

“He (Suhabhatta) killed and tortured Brahmins not out of any malice or hatred towards them. It was just out of his devotion towards Turuskadarsana, the philosophy of Islam, that he killed them and that got him no feeling of committing the sin of murder.”

Suhabhatta was a Brahmin who was an employee of Sikandar Butshikan (1353-1413). He converted to Islam and therefore came into direct conflict with other Brahmins who refused to convert.

Sikandar Butshikan taking advantage of this fault line appointed him prime minister of his kingdom. This gave Suhabhatta unlimited power to torture and persecute Kashmiri Pandits.

The verse makes it clear that it is the ideology that drove Suhabhatta to commit those genocidal crimes. The ideology was Turuskadarsana — the value systems of Muslim kings who had occupied Kashmir and aimed at annihilating infidels.

The verse explains that torturing or killing the Brahmins does not make Suhabhatta guilty for his actions.

After turning to Islam, he killed Brahmins without harbouring any personal ill will towards them. He was motivated only by his deep devotion to Islam’s principles.

This indicates that he developed a certain identity as a result of the philosophy of the religion he had converted to and did not want to identify as anything other than a Muslim.

The perpetrator of genocide does not kill an individual due to any personal hate but he kills for the individual’s identity and his being part of a group that the perpetrator would like to annihilate.

This Turuskadarsana as explained by Jonaraja several times in his writings is a genocidal legacy that Muslim kings brought with themselves to Kashmir.

Turuskadarsana is the intent that led to seven exoduses of Kashmiri Pandits each one replicating and then surpassing the previous one in terms of atrocities and brutalities. The intention every time was annihilation of infidels.

Jonaraja while explaining the genocide committed by Sikandar Butshikan writes:

marudbhiriva vrksanam salinam salabhairiv  |

kasmira desacaranam dhvamsoatha  yavanaih krtah || 575

“As a storm uproots trees and locusts devastate a crop of rice, the lived life, the way of life that identified Kashmir was destroyed by Yavanas — the Muslims.”

Jonaraja was court historian of Butshikan’s successor — Sultan Zain-ul-Abedin popularly known as Bud Shah. Bud Shah’s reign was of relative peace for Kashmiri Pandits.

The brutal atrocities stopped during his reign but that does not mean he treated Pandits as equals. The jizya tax continued under Bud Shah’s reign and Pandits were treated as second class citizens.

Why would Bud Shah hire Jonaraja to write evil things about his predecessor who also happened to be his father?

It is inconceivable that even though Bud Shah adopted reconciliatory note towards Pandits, he would go as far as allowing Jonaraja to vilify his father.

Clearly Jonaraja was arm twisted by no one to write anything he did not want to write. One reason why Jonaraja’s text has stood the test of time even after it was ignored is because it details accurately the historical events as experienced by Jonaraja.

To dismiss him as a ‘court historian’ like Abul Fazal in Akbar’s time displays limited understanding of Jonaraja’s original work and his blazing intellect.

Jonaraja’s account is independently verified in Baharistan-i-Shahi which is a Persian chronicle of medieval Kashmir. The Persian manuscript was written by an anonymous author and has been translated by Kashinath Pandita.

Baharistan-i-Shahi ridicules and criticises Bud Shah for his “magnanimity” towards infidels and rues the fact that he does not follow the policies of Sultan Sikandar who they praise profusely for destroying idol houses and driving infidels out of Kashmir and strengthening Islam in Kashmir.

700 years before Raphael Lemkin defined genocide, Jonaraja defined genocide accurately and identifies that it is the intent of annihilation of a community that distinguishes genocide from other violent acts.

apathyasiva balah sa samantasahitastatah|

jananaṃ jatividhvamse suhabhattah krtodyamah| 605

Jonaraja says that like a “child eating non-food items like clay and mud, Suhabhatta, with his aides indulged in jatividhvams, that is genocide of people.” Here Jonaraja makes the point that embracing a radicalising ideology is equal to eating non-food items like clay and mud.

Jonaraja gives us the Sanskrit word for genocide — jati vidhvams. Here jati is not to be confused with caste. Jati for Kashmiri Pandits those days meant religious and ethnic identity. Here is how Jonaraja describes laments of Kashmiri pandits:

jatidhvamse marisyamo dvijesviti vadatsvatha |

jatiraksanimittaṃ sa tandurdandamajigrahata|606

“The Brahmins said that they shall die if their jati is destroyed, that means they are converted to Islam. They were told that if they want to keep their jati they should pay the fine, that is Jaziya.”

The first exodus after the genocide was unleashed happened during Sikandar Butshikan’s reign in the beginning of fifteenth century. Butshikan was followed by his son Sultan Zain ul Abedin or Bud Shah under whose reign Pandits found some temporary respite even though Jaziya and other discriminatory practices continued. His son Haidar Shah continued genocidal assault on Pandits.

The second exodus occurred when Shamasuddin Araqi, a Sufi Shia proselytiser came to Kashmir in 1496. He committed unspeakable atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits, broke their temples and destroyed their homes.

The third exodus was during the Mughal rule. In seventh century Iftikhar Khan, the governor of Kashmir appointed by Aurangzeb, committed severe atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits. The fourth exodus occurred during the Pathan rule (1752-1819).

The brutal tyranny unleashed by Afghans had no parallels in history. 1931 saw the fifth exodus of Kashmiri Pandits. Sheikh Abdullah launched a movement against the Dogra rule and in the process Kashmiri Pandits were assaulted and thrown out.

The sixth exodus happened when Pakistani tribals invaded Kashmir in 1947. The seventh exodus of 1990 resulted in complete ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir.

What is common between perpetrators who unleashed genocide over 700 years? Sunnis, Shias, Mughals, Pathans, Pakistani tribals and local Kashmiri Muslims turned terrorists — all unleashed genocide.

All belonged to different communities and regions within Islamic fold yet all wanted annihilation of Kashmiri Pandits. Jonaraja explains the root of this problem in Turuskadarsana. The perpetrators may have been different but all followed principle of Turuskadarsana — the philosophy of Islam which divides the world between believers and infidels.

Where does this leave the lone Hindu king — Harsha who too destroyed temples?

When Harsha ascended the throne of Kashmir, Islam had already entered the subcontinent and valley of Kashmir. If we examine the “intent” principle of genocide then two strands become clear.

One is Harsha needed money to cover up for his inefficiencies and second with rising Islamic influence he began adapting the ways of Muslim rulers. He had already employed Turkish mercenaries in his army.  Kalhana feels the need to clearly mention that Harsha still ate pork which alludes to the fact that otherwise he had adopted all facets of Islam.

Kalhana clearly calls him Turuksha king so when he was destroying temples it was under the influence of same Turuskadarsana — the philosophy of Islam. Why did successors of Harsha not follow his iconoclasm like successors of Sikandar Butshikan did?

Harsha was motivated by Islam to become iconoclast and not by any Hindu philosophy prevalent in Kashmir at that time. That is why there is no other instance of any other Hindu king of Kashmir indulging in destruction of temples.

By picking up one aberration of King Harsha and then denying entire history of genocide of Kashmiri Pandits beginning in medieval era is becoming victim of what Kanisetti accuses those who disagree with him — fundamentalism.

The purpose of this rebuttal to Anirudhh Kanisetti’s video is not only pointing out historical inaccuracies but also understanding that purposely misunderstanding the ‘intent’ of genocidal actions amounts to denial of genocide.

Marko Attila Hoare, a historian at Britain’s Kingston University who briefly worked for the Hague Tribunal prosecution clearly articulates “The Hague Tribunal introduced a new way of understanding genocide based on intent rather than the number of victims”.

Hoare explained that in the past, historians had an image of genocide from the Holocaust, where millions of people were killed systematically. “The intent was that absolutely every member of the group be killed and that there be no survivors.”

The Hague Tribunal’s verdicts in its Srebrenica cases offers a new perception of the crime. Genocide is not about numbers — instead it is important to prove the intent to destroy a certain group of people. Killings, according to Hoare, are only one way to achieve such a goal.

Hoare further says “If you look at the international legal definition of genocide, it does not say just killing as a type of crime, but also stopping births within a group. So, in theory you could commit genocide without killing anyone if you sterilise all members of a group. So, genocide is not a matter of numbers, but the intent to destroy a group”.

If human race ever decides to use its superior intellect to bring an end to all genocidal crimes that are happening now and will continue to happen it is important that we study history with the new understanding of what genocides are and learn how to identify ‘intent’ behind all genocides that have happened in the past.

Medieval history of India must be studied and deconstructed with the new understanding and scholarship that genocide studies equips us with. 

 Foot notes:

 Translations of all Sanskrit verses of Rajatarangini by Dr Dileep Kaul – Director of Jonaraja Institute of Genocide and Atrocities studies

Rajatarangini by Jonaraja – Raghunath Singh