The details of Mahmud Ghaznavi's attack are also revealed by
some traders. A merchant, Javadi (who soon became very rich and made a name for
himself in the trade), has also attributed Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion as very important.
Despite all these facts, it is very difficult to know whether the purpose of
Mahmud Ghaznavi's attacks was to end Shiva's monopoly and power or whether he
wanted to demolish the rich temple. Incidents of looting by local kings have
been consistently mentioned in all investigations. If Kumarapala spent a lot of
money on the renovation of the temple, was his aim to perpetuate his monopoly?
Did Mahmud of Ghaznavi destroy the temple so that he could rule the region
instead of Kumarapala?
In 1264, a merchant used Arabic and Sanskrit to describe the
construction of a mosque in the area in these words. That Khwaja Nooruddin
Feroze, the son of Khwaja Ibrahim, was a reputed merchant. As indicated by the
first part of his name, Khwaja/Khwaja. He built a mosque at Mahajan Pali, a
place near Somnath, which was called Dharma Mastana. The site for this was
obtained from the local Raja Sri Chava, who was the son of Nana Simha. Apart
from this, the kings of Kathiavar, Malad Yuha, Chanakya Vigilya, and Arjunidva also
knew about it. Location approval for the land was obtained from two local
bodies, Panchakala and Jamatha. The Panchakala was a strong local committee
consisting of many Sufis, officers, businessmen, and local dignitaries. Its
chairman was one of the custodians of the temple of Purohita Somnath. Some
evidence suggests that Purohita succeeded Brahaspati. Eyewitnesses to the place
It is said that he was a very big man. Among them were Thakurs, Rankes, Rajas, and merchants belonging to Mahajan Pali. Some of them were also entrusted with
the administration of Somnath and the protection of the temple.
Other committees included in the agreement included the
Jamaat, which consisted of ship owners, sailors, and religious teachers. Apart
from this, they also included people who look after the horses and oil
changers. Most of them were named after their region or caste. That they were
all Salmans, and since the Jamatha had to arrange the money allocated for the
construction of the temple, they made a detailed examination of the caste of
all the people. A reasonable income was also expected from the property
adjoining the temples of Somnath and Patna, while the income of an oil mill and
two shops were also earmarked for the mosque. Shops and oil mills were bought
from local people.
This proves that the site for the mosque was bought by a
businessman instead of a conqueror and all the requirements of legal
proceedings were fulfilled for that too, because all the nobles and dignitaries
of the area participated in it. This is the reason why the mosque had a
connection with the area adjacent to the temple of Somnath. This raises several
questions. 200 years after Mahmud Ghaznavi's invasion, did the local people not
remind the invaders about this treaty? Was their memory too limited or were
those things unimportant to them?
Did the local people differentiate between Arab and West
Asian traders because Arabs were called Turks and South Asians were called
Tajiks? Or were the former more popular and the latter relatively less
important? One thing is certain they were all Muslims like today's
Muslims. Hormuz was famous for horse-trading. Therefore, Nooruddin's statements
are important. Have commercial profits overtaken all things? Were the temple and
its administrators also involved in horse-trading and making considerable
profits, although (the congregations there were Muslim) and like Mahmud of
Ghaznavi all were Muslims.
In the 15th century, the people of Gujarat are often found
talking about the war against the Turks. Another text found at Somnath, though
in Sanskrit, begins with Bismillah ur Rahman ur Raheem. It also details the
Dahra or Bohra family. We know that the Bohras were essentially Arabs. It is
also stated that the city of Somnath was attacked by Tarskas and Wahra Farid, the
son of Bohra Muhammad, took charge of the defense of the city in place of the
local Raja Basra Hamadeva.
After a detailed examination of the circumstances and
events, it is known that it is not possible to find any simple reasons for the
attack on the temple of Somnath, but then what is the reason that today we
interpret the attack of Mahmud Ghaznavi as Hindu-Muslim enmity which has
continued till date. Coming? KM Munshi says, "The event of Mahmud
Ghaznavi's destruction of his temple has been embedded in the nature of the
Hindu race for a thousand years." Now he has become an unforgettable
disaster for this nation."
Interestingly, Mahmud Ghaznavi's attack on Somnath was also
discussed in the House of Commons in London in 1843, in which the two gates of
the temple of Somnath are mentioned. Lord Ellenburg passed the famous
Resolution for the Return of the Doors, which ordered the British Army in
Afghanistan to remove the doors from Mahmud Ghaznavi's mausoleum and bring them
back to India. They were believed to have been looted from the temple of
Somnath. It is said that the purpose of returning these gates was to show
Britain's dominance over Afghanistan, although they were not that powerful in
Afghanistan and had suffered a heavy defeat in the Anglo-Afghan War, because
the Afghan people, like the Indian people, share religion and They were not
divided into sects, but they fought a joint armed struggle and crushed the
teeth of the British.
Indian Hindus also wanted to show that they were
well-wishers of the British and thus the British catered to their sentiments.
This resolution created a storm in the House of Commons, and this event led to
a long-lasting feud between the government and the opposition. The opposition
raised the point that Ellenberg was spreading religious bigotry in the country
by favoring Hindus. The government says that those gates were a symbol of
national pride and it is not being done on the basis of any religion or race.
In this regard, the request made by the ruler of Punjab, Ranjit Singh, to the
King of Afghanistan, Shah Shuja, was also presented. Although an examination of
his letter reveals that the story of the temple gates during Mahmud Ghaznavi's
invasion is considered a fictional creation.
Historians who are cited in this regard include Gabon, and two
Iranian poets, Ferdowsi, Saadi, and Farishta. Farishta was the only person who
translated the history of India into English in the seventeenth century.
Angel's account is as interesting as that of earlier historians in the past,
according to which there was a huge temple, and when it was broken open, diamonds
and gems were found in its belly.
Allen's critics feared the repercussions of the incident. In
their opinion, the demolition of the doors will unleash a war of
ethnic-religious prejudice in the subcontinent and will especially hurt the
sentiments of Muslims. Ellenberg's supporters argued that Hindus had long
considered themselves to be an inferior race. The doors were removed and
brought back, but it was later discovered that they were made by Egyptians
rather than Hindus. Anyway, how could a sultan like Mahmud Ghaznavi like to
attach the doors taken down from a Hindu temple to his mausoleum? Later these
doors were placed in the Agra Fort where they became food for termites.
KM Munshi called for the construction of Somnath temple and
he wrote several novels inspired by Walter Scott but a deeper impression comes
from Hiken Chandra Chatterjee's novel "Jai Somnath" published in
1927. Munshi wished to return to the pre-Islam era of Hindus. He said that the
destruction of the temple of Somnath became an important symbol of the
greatness of Muslims in the subcontinent. In 1951, Munshi (who was then a
minister in the central government) said on the construction of the Somnath
temple, "India is very happy today that the construction of the Somnath
temple has started with the support of the Indian government." Nehru
protested this. That the Indian government was taking part in the construction
of the Somnath temple, he said that this work should have been done at the
private level as the move would have hurt the slogan of secular India. The
laying of its foundation stone by Indian President Rajendra Saad was in no way
acceptable to him.
From the attack on the temple of Somnath, it can be concluded that this attack highlighted the element of victory on the one hand, but on the other hand, the process of resistance also developed. We have to look at the events of different historians in relation to that particular environment and event only then we can come to a better conclusion. However, the facts show that some Hindu groups deliberately tried to use this incident as a basis to promote Hindu-Muslim enmity. Persian historians later used a successful invasion for political purposes, although this was not the case earlier. Therefore, I can clearly say that Mahmud Ghaznavi's attack on the temple of Somnath was not in any way political and it was not in any way the basis of Hindu-Muslim enmity, but some Hindu groups made this incident a basis. (Continued)
0 Comments
Post a Comment