Learning by example: how the reconstruction of Somnath temple in Gujarat didn’t involve a blood shed.
The history of Somnath temple in Veraval, Gujarat is ridden with destruction done by many invaders through time, before being completely destroyed by Aurangazeb in 1665.
In 725 CE, Al-Junayd, the Arab governor of Sindh is said to have destroyed the second temple as part of his invasions of Gujarat and Rajasthan, according to J. Gordon Melton. But there is no historical evidence for the same.
During the 1299 invasion of Gujarat, Alauddin Khalji’s army, led by Ulugh Khan, defeated the Vaghela king Karna, and sacked the Somnath temple. According to Kishori Saran Lal, the idol was broken and carried to Delhi, where it was thrown to be trampled under the feet of Muslims.
After the independence
The Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel called for the reconstruction of the temple in November, 1947 after making the region a part of independent India. Other leaders like Kanhaiya Lal Munshi, V P Menon, S Radhakrishnan and Rajendra Prasad supported this cause. Mahatma Gandhi too hailed the reconstruction of the temple, but he put forward the condition that a trust was to be set up for raising fund for it rather than relying on the State. Shree Somnath Trust was set up for the same and thus the plan was set into motion. Together, the temple was reconstructed in the Chaulukya style of Hindu temple architecture and is considered one of the jyothirlinga temples of Shiva.
It’s said that the mosque that stood in its place was shifted to another site a few kilometers away. I read this piece of information all over the internet, but without any reliable sources!
Reclaiming temples
This historical anecdote shows that with the support of historians and politicians, it’s possible to rebuild a destroyed temple non-violently! It’s true that if not for Sardar Vallabhai Patel’s resolve, Somnath temple would have remained a distant dream.
The confidence of the early politicians in our country in Hindu culture was so strong, building the many important temples like Ram Janmbhoomi or Krishn Janmbhoomi wouldn’t be as difficult as it has become today. There are two reasons for that:
a) Politicians of those times believed local narratives, folklore and oral histories, in which Hindus always talked about the oppression they faced under the Islamic rule.
b) In the backdrop of Partition or otherwise, most scholars and people in the political domain knew the dangers of radical Islam (as it is called today). Islamphobia was not a concept then!
B.R Ambedkar criticised Islam as much as he criticised Hinduism. And that didn’t make him an Islamophobe.
“There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the score between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”
As illustrated by the history of Somnath temple, Islamic rulers repeatedly desecrated and sacked it, humiliating and terrorising an entire culture. But today, our mainstream historians find excuses to leave out iconoclasm and targeted violence from these assaults! They’d claim, that’s the nature of history, of war or politics.
Excerpts from the book Medieval India: From Sultanate to the Mughals Part — II By Satish Chandra.
The excuses that modern historians put forth about Islamic history seldom reflect in any other culture’s history. Why would Aurangzeb want to adopt harsh methods on Hindus if he knew he benefited from the nobles, rajas and zamindars?
This poor rationalisation given to rulers who were cruel Islamic dictators alienates the Hindus who feel victimised and humiliated by the atrocities done to their ancestors. And they look for other narratives and groups that give their experiences due respect!
“Hindu revivalism”
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru used the phrase “Hindu revivalism” to object to the idea of rebuilding Somnath temple. He greatly dejected the idea of K. M. Munshi carrying on with the construction after Patel’s passing on. Nehru disapproved the then President Rajendra Prasad inaugurating the temple so much that he censored his speech on that day.
Pandit Nehru wanted to keep faith and religion out of politics. He didn’t want the old wounds to be dug up again, instead to move forward with the development of Independent India.
Moreover, as historian Ramachandra Guha writes in his book, ‘India after Gandhi’.
“Nehru felt that it was the responsibility of the Congress and the government to make the Muslims in India feel secure. Patel, on the other hand was inclined to place the responsibility on the minorities themselves.”
Therefore, he tried to appease the feelings of the minority religion as much as possible.
Seven decades ahead, “Hindu revivalism” became “Hindu terrorism” and “fascism”. The aspirations of dignified faith of a Hindu became an act of oppression and hegemony. Or, a waste of resources, tax money and unwanted spending unavailable for the growth of the country!
None of this justifies the demolishing of the mosque, especially in a democratic country. But as in the case of Somnath temple, reconstruction of the temple was quite possible without violence, if it wasn’t for the misrepresentation of history, and the reluctance of the mainstream socio-political groups to give the majoritarian interest any value.
After that decades of blood shed that cost lives on all sides, Ram Mandir is being built with the same resolve as Somnath temple, only after completing the due process of the judiciary. That can only be attested with K.M. Munshi’s words,
“It is my faith in our past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future. I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad Gita or uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and thereby destroys the texture of our lives.”
Emotional anchoring on history
The irony is that slowly the narrative of Ayodhya will die away. The historians and academicians will come to terms with the ASI findings that there was a temple beneath the now-demolished mosque. People will start to hail Ram Mandir as the rightful tribute to Ram Janmbhoomi. Because from here on, nothing is to gained from doing otherwise!
However, all those who had an emotional investment in this matter, be it anger or guilt would find themselves defeated, or even disillusioned by what’s happening. To these people, my request is to understand history in your own terms. Understand Islamic history and Islamic history in India. Historians have no right to control narratives or persuade their readers how to interpret history.
Hindus are not a violent bunch. In fact, we weren’t too different from Jains or Buddhists. A huge movement has been made to show how oppressive and backward Hindus were; yet another way to control the narrative. If you understand what a bloody reign of slavery, looting and destruction Islamic rule really was, and if you see how bloody, destructive and menacing Islamic domination still is, you’d understand the underlining messages behind Hindutva!
