 |
The Sanskrit Chronicles of Kashmir& Oral Tradition Among the Kashmiri Brahmins || By Dr. S.N. Pandita |
The Enigma of
Sikandar ‘Bhutshikan’
In
The Sanskrit Chronicles of Kashmir& Oral
Tradition Among the Kashmiri Brahmins
(A first-time
scan into Sanskrit terms used for Sikandar’s iconoclasm)
Dr. S.N. Pandita
Europe’s Earliest
Attention to History of Kashmir
Europe’s earliest account of
Kashmir dates as early as the 17th century and survives in the
travel diary of the French travelerFrancois Bernier who, as a personal
physician of Dara Shuko, son ofShahjahan, accompanied the Great Mughal Court to
the Valley in the summer of 1664 AD. During his stay in Kashmir, Bernier, at
the time obtained a copy of the Persian compilation of Kashmir history byHaider
Malik Chadura that was written in Jehangir’s time.
Chadura’s account was ‘avowedly’based
on the original Sanskrit works of the Rajatarangini that had
several major movements; those that captured the early Hindu history up to the
middle of the 12thcentury (from earliest times to 1150 AD) by Pandit
Kalhana followed by continuation of this historical tradition in the same vein
that were written by later-date chroniclers like Jonaraja, (from 1151-1460AD), Srivara,(1474-
1485 AD), Prajyabhatta. (!486-1513AD) and Shuka(1513- 1531 AD) These works
alsotermed Rajataranginis covered the Salatini Kashmir covering the period of
the Kashmiri Muslim rule before Kashmir came under the Mughals.
Following his return to his
native country, Bernier penned his ‘Travels’ in which he made reference to the ‘histories
of the ancient kings of Kashmir’. A century later another French (Tyrolese)
missionary, Tieffenthaler wrote ‘Description de Indie’ giving summary of
Kashmir rulers. Even before his work appeared in print, Gladwin prepared a
translation of Abu-i-Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari in which the author profusely quotes Rajataranginis
as the authority of his own history of Kashmir.
Very obviously,these writers
relied on Hyder Malik Chadura’s Persian phrase of ‘Bhutshikan’
coined by him to describe Sikandar’s bigoted religious conduct against the
Kashmiri Brahmins (Hindus) by plundering and destroyingtheir religious
institutions – the temples- based on the accountsgiven in the later dateRajataranginisof
Jonaraja and Srivara.It is awell-known historical fact that original Sanskrit
editions of the Rajatarangini triad were not read and studied by anyone
leave alone the western scholars even until as late as early 19th
century when Thomas Colebrooke published an incomplete edition of Kalhana’s Rajatarangini
in 1825. Ten years later, Horace Hayman Wilson published the first six cantos
of Kalhana’s work in 1835.
Prior to the appearance of
Wilson’s incomplete work, another British traveler William Moorcroft too had
secured a Devanagari transcript of the Kalhana’s Rajataranginifrom the
original Sarada manuscript when he travelled to Kashmir sometime about 1823. In
1840,Anthony Troyer began with another attempt to publish a new edition in
French translation. Troyer’s edition was also prepared from the same materials as
those used previously. In the end, Troyer’s French edition also comprised only
the first six cantos that appeared in 1852.
All these efforts, however,
pointed out to one fact that trustworthy materials were needed before the
chronicle became worthy for further historical and antiquarian study. Yet no
further efforts were invested to secure the desired materials for next two
decades and more until Georg Buhler located the existence of the original Codex
Archetypus of theRajatarangini during his memorable tour to Kashmir in
1875. However, it was thirteen years later that Aurel Stein finally succeeded
in securing the ‘Codex’ in 1889 which followed with the publication of his
first reliable Sanskrit edition of Kalhana’s Rajataranginin in 1892
followed by his masterly English translation in 1900.JogeshChunderDutt too
prepared a Sanskrit edition in 1899 AD.
It is equally well known
that subsequent to the advent ofIslam in Kashmir in the 14th century,
Sanskrit was replaced by Persian as court language but yet Rajataranginis
by Jonaraja, Srivara, Prajyabhatta and
Shuka were written in Sanskrit during the Muslim period.
Popular Use of
the Terms:‘Bhutshikan’&‘Iconoclast’
However, after Chadura,several
other Persian histories were written from the Mughal period till the Afghantimes with succinct details of
early Sanskrit histories. All these later date accounts primarily relied on
Hyder Chadura’s Persian phrase ‘Bhutshikan’ for Sikandar’s
inglorious deeds against the Kashmiri Hindus.
More pertinently, no western
scholar until the late 20thcentury translated the original Sanskrit
texts of Jonaraja, Srivara and Suka into English. The credit for this goes to
Walter Slaje who undertook their translation from Sanskrit directly into
English sometime towards the close of last century and the beginning of the
present century. (Late 90s -2007)
The early 19th
century accounts of Kashmir came from travelerslike WilliamMoorcroft, (1823)
Baron Von Hugel (1835) and Fredric Drew, (1875) Their accounts were more like
travelogues than any detailed history and covered the early Sikhand Dogra
periods of the Kashmir history. In all these accounts there is no reference to
‘Bhutshikan’.
However, being familiarized
with the Persian term ‘Bhutshikan’for more than two centuries,
the first popular record of the term ‘iconoclast’ for ‘Bhutshikan’
was recorded by Charles Ellison Bates when he prepared the ‘Kashmir Gazetteer’
in 1874 which gave a brief summary of Kashmir history from early times to the Dogra
period.
 |
Ruins of Martand Temple. |
Next mention of the terms‘Bhutshikan’
and ‘iconoclast’ in the popular tradition of Kashmir history appears in
Walter Lawrence’s famous 1895book:‘The Valley of Kashmir’ which toed the
terminology used by Bate’s in his ‘Gazetteer’.
Again, a brief summary of
Kashmir’s political history in English appeared in 1908 ‘Kashmir’ by Francis
Younghusband who, however, has glossed over both the terms ‘iconoclast’ and ‘Bhutshikan’by
not mentioning these terms or even making any direct reference to Sikandar’s
rule in Kashmir.
However, given the popular
impress of Persian on Kashmiris, both Muslims and Hindus, every subsequent
account of popular history of Kashmir by native authors like R.C. Kak(1933AD),
P.N. Bazaz (1935AD), Jia Lal Kilam (1955AD), Gwashlal Kaul(1960)and P.N.K.Bamzai(1987)
used the same popular entrenched terms ‘Bhutshikan’ and
‘iconoclast’ for Sikandar.
Since no one among these
later date 20th century writers in English actually referred to any
original terms used for Sikandar’s misdeeds in Sanskrit chronicles written by
Jonaraja and Srivara but relied on Chadura’s original coinage of the term
‘Bhutshikan ‘in Persian and used repeatedly byearlier English writers like
Bates and Lawrence with their own English translation for ‘Bhutshikan’
with the word ‘iconoclast’.
It is in this popular record
of modern Kashmir historythat terms‘Bhutshikan’ and ‘iconoclast’
took the form of indelible historical terminology and no one really bothered to
know or investigate the Sanskrit term for ‘Bhutshikan’ that was
used by Jonaraja and Srivara in their respective Rajataranginis for
Sikandar’s plundering acts against the Hindu temples and destruction of their
religious idols. Every writer small and big used the same term ‘Bhutshikan’
as if no word existed in the Kashmir’s historicalSanskrit lexicon.
Another fact that this paradox unveils is that
all recent native Hindu Kashmiri writers who have referred to Sikandar have
relied on Bates and Lawrence and have not cared to dig deep into the words that
have been used by Jonaraja and Srivara in their Sanskrit works to describe
Sikandar’s bigoted acts against the Kashmiri Hindus.
It also points to another
uncomfortable fact that all recent writers of Kashmir history, particularly,
the Hindu writers, have known about Jonraja’s and Srivara’s Rajatarangini from
secondary accounts as given in the English translations as recorded by Bates
and Lawrence primarily who in the first instance have copied the term‘Bhutshikan’
fromMalik Hyder Chadura’s Persian compilation of the Rajataranginis.No
native historian seems to have looked into Raghunath Singh’s and Jogesh Chunder
Dutt’s Sanskrit editions of Jonaraja’sRajatarangini.
This situation haspractically
led to the situation that no Kashmiri in present times knows the Sanskrit term
used by Jonraja and Srivara for Sikandars’s misdeeds. After
all, the original histories of Kashmir are written in Sanskrit and their Persian
translations came much later.
However, since the Europeans
first acquainted themselves about the Kashmir history through Persian
translation and all the later date modern native writers simply copied the term
‘Bhutshikan’ without caring to know or record what term existed
in the Sanskrit chronicles.
 |
Ruins of Pattan Temple. |
Irking Question
Being a student of Kashmir’s
history, culture and heritage,the puzzle, however, irked my mind sometime at
the beginning of 2020 when I shared my query with my close Kashmiri friend who
counts among the most well-informed, learned and eminent men of letters of the
present Kashmiri Pandit generation. Having been forced into exile for more than
thirty-three years and having no meaningful contacts to pursue my query in
Srinagar, Kashmir, among the Muslim literati, and having no access to Jonaraja
and Srivara’s original Sanskrit chronicles and also being Sanskrit-illiterate,
I sought to run to other sources that could possibly lead me to some clues to
find the answer to this elusive historical puzzle if at all there are any
reference works written in English that
may have used the Sanskrit term for Sikandar’s anti-Hindu acts.
Here it may also be stated
that to the best of my knowledge, no writer of Kashmir history and none of the modern
works on the history of Kashmirwritten post Chadura’s Persian history of
Kashmir has used the Sanskrit term for Sikandar’s bigoted deeds. Every work
without exception has copy-pasted the term Sikandar Bhutshikan. No one really
seems to have cared toknow the original term that was used by Sanskrit
chroniclers for Sikandar and actually translated by Hyder Malik Chaduraas ‘Bhutshikan’
which has become nothing short of an indelible historical inscription written
on unerasable stone!
Revisiting the
Popular Literature
However, before, I could
think and explore other possible ways to access the resources that could
provide the answer, I decided to revisit all the writings mentioned above to
reconfirm my ignorance in order to ruleout, if some writer many have actually
used the elusive Sanskrit term in the English accounts of Kashmir history.However,
the more I dug into the extant literature on the subject, the more distant
seemed the answer to lie.
In the process, I became
aware of Slaje’s English translations of Jonaraja’s and Srivara’sRajatarangini
that give details about Sikandar’s rule in Kashmir. But I realized that this
too would come to no avail until someone led me to the actual term recorded in
original Sanskrit works or someone having used that term in their work in
English like all English writers have used ‘Bhutshikan’alongside
its approximate English equivalent ‘iconoclast’.
Here it may be mentioned
that the term ‘iconoclast’ does meanan idol breaker which Sikandar in any case
was. But Sikandar, not only broke the Hindu idols, he also plundered and
destroyed their temples. From this consideration the term’ iconoclast’ in
English does not suffice for Sikandar’s actual and complete misdeeds and is in
fact a far diluted term; perhaps a weak equivalent which the European
historians have used for his barbaricactions against the Kashmiri Brahmins.
 |
Temple ruins at Wangath. |
The Search
Begins
Months rolled into yearand ayear
into two, when my instinct led me to seek help from a friend in the US who has
great interest in the History of Kashmir. As I placed my query, with a long
explanation as dealt above, before my friend, hefortunately appreciated my
question. Rather, it appealed him so much that he almost made me realize that
it wasno longermyquestion but had aroused a keener curiosity in him to solve
this puzzle, given his own interest in the history of Kashmir.
Fortunately, placed as he is
in the high academic position in the US, he assured me that he shall help me by
exploring the best source materials that could be available on the planet
concerning the history of Kashmir. This meant that he would dig into the
archives of New York Public Library, popularly referred to as NYPL, which
according to him is the greatest library of the world. Being himself a regular
visitor to this great temple of learning for several years now and being almost
a daily visitor there, my friend used his best contacts among the library
keepers and other assisting staff to locate the necessary material that would
unlock the puzzle.
Prophetic
Signposts
My friend suggested to me,
that more than merely looking into the original Sanskrit works on the history
of Kashmir, it may instead be more worthwhile to explore some earliertravelogues
of Western travelers other than Bates and Lawrence who actually may have
recorded the term from the local utterances of the native Kashmiri Hindus as to
how Sikandar would then have been described or remembered in popular Kashmiri
tradition for his iconoclastic deeds.
Unaware of such other
references and where to look for them in India; my ignorance and inability to
search for such resource material, I requested my friend if he could suggest me
as to what further accounts of westerners, I must look for to find the possible
answer. On this my friend advised me to wait until he was able to find some
leads in his great library.
Sometime later, he mentioned
about Earl of Dunmore’stravel to Kashmir and Ladakh and also of 1st
Baronet Richard Temple’s visit to Jammu and Kashmir.
The Golden Key
Time passed; I waited in
patience when hefinally handed over to me the ‘golden key’ that would open the
door to the elusive historical cave. Using it, I actually struck the
‘historical gold’!
Temple traveled in Jammu and
Kashmir between June 8 to July 8 in 1859. On June 21, 1859 Temple went to see
Achhabal quite early in the morning. Later, he paid a visit to the garden.
After looking over the garden, Temple returned to Islamabad (Anantnag) and
after breakfast started by boat for Wantipur (Avantipura) gliding over the
Jhelum River. The boat provided by the Maharaja was rowed by twenty rowers who
sang songs along the way. A separate boat carried Temple’s baggage and his
attendants.
After a journey of two
hours, the Baronet arrived at Bijbehara, then a place of pilgrimage for the
Kashmiri Brahmins. There he saw a stone ‘Linga’ close to the bank of the river
which was a great object of veneration for the Brahmins. Close by, he also sawthe
ruins of anold Hindu temple that the locals informed him was knocked down some
five hundred years ago by Sikandar.
Interacting with the locals,
both the Hindus and Muslims to know more about the deeds of this king,the
Hindus spoke of him as “Mandir Vijesha”while the Muslims called
him “Bhutshikan” both of which terms Temple recorded“may be
translated by “iconoclast”.
The people also informed the
Baronet that with the stones of this temple, Sikandar had built a mosque a
short distance away from the town which stood there until very recent times.
However, the Maharaja (Gulab Singh) had ordered it to be pulled down and the
temple to be restored on its original site. The work on the temple was in
progress at the time the Baronet was passing through this area.
Thus,this record of the
mid-19th century western traveler to Kashmir preserves the use of
Sanskrit term by which Sikandar’s iconoclastic deeds were remembered by
Kashmiri Hindus in the popular tradition.
Further Search
My friend’s further searcheslead
him to more explorations in other important learning storehouses in the US.
Knowing well that in more recent times people like David Frawley and Michael
Witzel at Harvard University; and alsoWalter Slaje at Halle in Germany, had
extensively rummaged through the pages of old history of Kashmir written in Sanskrit.
I, accordingly began accessing these works, particularly, Witzel’s writings on
Kashmir. Fortunately, it is in his writings that I bumped into the elusive
Sanskrit term that he has used to describe Sikandar’s plundering of Hindu
idols.
While Baronet Temple
recorded the Sanskrit term for Sikandar’s iconoclastic ways as“Mandir
Vijesha” from oral tradition of Kashmiri Hindus that was still extant
among them in the mid-19th century, Witzel’s work actually refers to
the written term“Murti-Lothana” meaning the idol breaker used by
Srivara in his Rajatarangini.
Comparative
Analysis of the Sanskrit & Persian Terms
It may therefore be observed
that Sanskrit terms (Mandir Vijesha) used in oral tradition by
the Kashmiri Brahmins about a century and six decades ago and written record in
Srivara’s Sanskrit chronicle (Murti- Lothana) nearly five
centuries ago are more comprehensiveand fully suggestive of Sikandar’s hatred
for Hindu symbolismwhere the term ‘Mandir Vijesha”means
‘destroyer of temples’ and “Murti-Lothana” meaning the ‘idol
breaker’.
As against, the popular
Persian term“Bhutshikan”merely refers to Sikandar being no more
than an ‘idol breaker’ as if he did not also destroy the Hindu temples with
equal impunity. Perhaps also,the Persian chronicler Hyder Malik Chadura, being
a co-religionist of Sikandar, may have slanted his pen not portray his misdeeds
against the Kashmiri Hindus with an uninhibited historical honesty.
Popular Tradition
But one thing is clear that the
impress of the term “Bhutshikan” coined by Malik Hyder Chaduraassumed
such a popular currency, both in the oral tradition of Kashmiris, be they
Hindus or Muslims and also in written
records, that all writers- Hindus, Muslims and Europeans have used the term
with ubiquitous repetition caring little for the Sanskrit terms- “Mandir
Vijesha” and“Murti-Lothana”that describe Sikandar’s
misdeeds against the Kashmiri Hindus with greater historical accuracy and
punch.
Candid Admission
& Future Usage
There is no denying the fact
that the popular impress of the term“Bhutshikan” is so indelibly
printed in the historiography of Kashmir for nearly four centuries now,that all
popular modern works on the history of Kashmir written in English designate
Sikandar with the eponym“Bhutshikan”without exception. No
present-day writer uses the name Sikandar without suffixing this inglorious
eponym with him.Also,the name or word“Bhutshikan”is on the tongue
of every Kashmiri like an unerasable mole! Its very mention brings historical
nightmares to the mind of the Kashmiri
Pandits.
Perhaps also, it is no
exaggeration to state that two namesfrom Kashmirhistory –Lal Ded
and Sikandar Bhutshikan– are so deeply ingrained in the psyche of
all Kashmiris of both the faiths that individual and his or her memory about
them is inseparable; of course, former for her spiritual emancipation and
humanity; and the latter for his political notoriety, barbarism and bigoted
religious slant.
However, in the background
of these on-the-ground realities, it remains to be seen that with the discovery
or if one may say, rediscovery of the lost original Sanskrit eponyms for “Bhutshikan”,
namely the“Mandir Vijesha”and “Murti-Lothana”, from
the debris of time, whether, from now onwards, the Kashmiri Pandits will
continue todesignate Sikandar with the old Persian eponym or begin using the
older Sanskrit eponym in their oral conversations and writings, given their
revived historical sense post-exodus from the Valley.
In a way, it may also
determine their sense of history and their desire to know their past from
original sources rather than from secondary and tertiaryaccounts or compromised
and inadequate translations.
How the present generation and
theyouth of the Kashmiri Pandits adopt these two Sanskrit terms, fromhere-onwards,
to recall the darkest period of their history will be an acid-test to their
commitment to their future and alsodetermine how they see their past in the
context of their seemingly irreversible exodus. Only‘Time’ will tell!
 |
Dr. S.N. Pandita |
