96 "Presenting" the Past
taken to be an undifferentiated, unchanging continuation of Ram Rajya."
This myth of medieval "Muslim tyranny" and Hindu (especially Rajput,
Maratha, and Sikh) national resistance was developed or endorsed in the
late nineteenth century by the nationalist leaders such as Bankim Chan-
dra Chatterjee, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Lala Lajpat
Rai, and so forth.^97 In history textbooks also, the medieval history of India
begins with the invasion of Muslims and the destruction of Hindu tem-
ples. It is presented as the single major issue ever since the first Arab con-
quest of Sind began in 712 under Muhammad bin Qasim. Explaining the
temple-breaking issue, an Indian high-school history textbook on medi-
eval history put out by the National Council of Educational Research and
Training (NCERT) points out,
In India his [Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030)] memory is only that of a plunderer and
a destroyer of temples. Mahmud is said to have made 17 raids into India.... [The]
raids of Mahmud into India were aimed at plundering the rich temples and cities
of northern India in order to continue his struggle against his enemies in Central
Asia. For his plundering raids into India the ghazis came handy to him. Mahmud
also posed as a great but shikan or "destroyer of the images" for the glory of Islam.
From the Punjab, Mahmud raided Nagarkot in the Punjab hills, and Thanesar near
Delhi. His most daring raids, however, were against Kanauj in 1018, and against
Somnath in Gujarat in 1025. In the campaign against Kanauj, he sacked and plun-
dered both Mathura and Kanauj, and returned via Kalinjar in Bundelkhand loaded
with fabulous riches.... the Ghaznavids continued to make plundering raids into
the Gangetic valley and Rajputana.^98The textbook underscores the theory that "the love of plunder went side
by side with the defence of Islam."^99
However, credible historians point out that the issue was much more
complex, and several explanations can be given for the destruction of
temples, such as treasure, piety, iconoclasm, and political exigencies. Most
importantly, there were exceptions of all sorts that prevent any possible
sweeping generalization. Romila Thapar writes that the raids into India
were an annual feature for Mahmud, and from 1010 to 1026 his invasions
were directed to temple towns such as Mathura, Thanesar, Kanauj, and
finally Somnath because "temples were depositories of vast quantities of
wealth, in cash, golden images, and jewellery." The succeeding Muslim
rulers, such as Muhammad Ghori, Qutbuddin Aibak, Bakhtiyar Khalji,
and so forth, are also said to have destroyed temples. Muhammad Ghori
is believed to have destroyed a large number of temples, including the
ones in Banaras (Varanasi). Some of the later Delhi sultans were popular
as temple breakers and idol smashers. The chroniclers wrote about these
activities in length to prove the Islamic devotion of their patrons. More
than piety, iconoclasm could also have been the reason for this vandalism.
Sultan Firuz Shah Tughluq (who came to power in 1357), for instance,