Talk:Somnath/Archive 1

The Narrative of History of the Somanth Temple and Mahmud's raid are taken straight from Imperial constructs dating from the end of the 19th century. These histories take the Turko-Persian court chronicles as their only major source and largely ignore the Jaina and Sanskrit texts of this period. These so called authoritative texts mostly exaggerate the event both in its importance and destruction caused at the hands of Mahmud's army. As a cursory glance at the political contexts of these texts shows their purpose was largely the glorification and legitimization of the rulers of Ghazni.

As these alternative sources make it clear, the sacking of the Somnath temple by Mahmud of Ghazni is not considered a major incident and belies the current politicizing of that event as causing major collective trauma to the Hindus (at the hands of invading Muslims) for centuries after the event. As a matter of fact looting of temples of competing kings and communities was fairly common in this period. Destruction and looting of Jaina temples by Shaivite rulers and vice versa have been recorded. The resident Arab traders took part in the defence of the temples in these raids. The invading 'muslims' were infact at that time recognised as Turks and held to be distinct from the resident merchant communities of Arab muslims.

Later texts in the 13th and 14th century largely ignore the sacking of Somnath and are more concerned about the dilapidation of the temple due to neglect.

Another interesting document records the sale of the temple land to a prosperous muslim merchant for the building of a mosque. The document is bilingual and records the friendly relationship among Brahmin, Jaina and Muslim traders that was characteristic of the elite of Gujrat in this period.

I believe this article needs to be updated and corrected to reflect current understanding of the event and related issues. -- User:Anusar, 13 Nov 2005, 12:40


 * Do you have any credible sources for your claims ? At a cursory glance they sound highly dubious, you talk about muslim, brahmin and jain traders. Most of the hindu traders would have been Banias not Brahmins. Secondly few if any gujaratis would have been muslim in the 13th / 14th century (see the history of Islam in India article). Gujarati muslim communities like the Memons, the Bhoras and Khojas can usually trace their heritage back 3-5 generations.


 * You claim that the Turko-Persian texts would have exxagerated the claims of the chaos, but this seems unlikely that their rulers were. Early Hindu and Jaina texts from rival kingdoms in Gujarat would have underreported the event as it was ruled by various rival rajput dynasties. In later times when hindus were allocated dhimmi status, it isn't really surprising that the texts don't mention the destructions. The fact that the temple has been built and rebuilt 7 times is an indication of its significance to Hindus, how then can you argue that the destruction of such an important Hindu site would not have caused distress amongst the hindus.


 * I don't see how the conflicts between jain and shavite kingdom relates to a discussion about the Somnath temple in particular. The purpose of the article is to give an accurate retelling of the history of Somnath not whether pre-islamic india was peaceful. You are attacking a strawman. -- User:64.229.26.99, 26 Feb 2006, 22:22

Sacrifice of Ghogha Bapa

 * Whenever we re-tell the hisory of Somnath, we shuold remeber supreme sacrifice of Ghogha Bapa, who at the age of 90 sacrificed his whole clan in his attempt to stop mehmud gazni. -- User:203.197.15.143, 30 March 2006, 05:44

Somnath Temple : Monument for caste system

 * I consider the construction of Somnath Temple by Leaders Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, Kaniyalal Munshi and Dr. Rajendra Prasad is insult to the Constitution of India. It is the monument of caste system. Readers are invited for discussion on this subject. Regards
 * vkvora 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi VKvora, I have been seeing your edits on the caste system and especially the Somnath temple. I would like to understand from you a bit more on how exactly Somnath temple is the symbol of caste system and how the various leaders of India have supported building the Somnath temple. Thanks
 * Lost 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Link http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1608/16081210.htm : History : Somanatha and Mahmud by Romila Thapar, Frontline, 16:8:Apr10-23, 1999, http://www.frontline.in/navigation/?type=static&page=flonnet&rdurl=fl1608/16081210.htm
 * vkvora 12:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Link updated by Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (From above.) On the rebuilding of the Somanatha temple in 1951, Munshi, by then a Minister of the central government, had this to say: "... the collective subconscious of India today is happier with the scheme of the reconstruction of Somanatha, sponsored by the Government of India, than with many other things we have done or are doing."35 Nehru objected strongly to the Government of India being associated with the project and insisted on its being restored as a private venture.36 That the President of India, Rajendra Prasad was to perform the consecration ceremony was unacceptable to him. This introduces a further dimension to the reading of the event, involving the secular credentials of society and state.
 * vkvora 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK....I support such involvement and would like to see similar involvement in Ayodhya issue also but leave that and please explain how exactly is Somnath temple is the symbol of caste system?
 * - Holy Ganga  talk [[Image:India flag 300.png|30px]] 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * vkvora, unfortunately the constitution of India doesn't mandate clear and succinct seperation of religion from government, but rather that all religions be treated equally. India is very strange in that it funds religious schools for minority religions only and has different civil codes for different religions. The government also openly censors anything that it considers offensive to religious sentiments. What you have citied is just one example of India's hypocracy when it comes to secularism, I don't see why it has to be singled out.
 * 65.94.158.247 07:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Assurance, Idol of Somnath and fact of attack

 * http://www.jatland.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4600&postcount=1


 * It has been mentioned in Indian History that Mahmood Ghazni had given a vow to the Khalifa to invade India every year, demolish the idols they worshipped and spread Islam. He invaded India 17 times.[ Note-1] Every time he came like a hurricane looted, and returned but only to create a large Army with that wealth, and invade again. Two of his invasions were purely against Jats and these proved the costliest. The Rajput kings of those days did not offer any appreciable resistance against his invasions. Once it was rumored that an attack on Somnath temple was imminent and it would be looted and devastated. All the Rajput Kings assembled there to save Somnath temple from this anticipated disaster, but had no mutual confidence among themselves. They had no heart to fight, but presented themselves only as a matter of prestige. The Head priest of this temple, however, assured them that there was no need to fight as the idol of Somnath would curse the devils to blindness, and they would perish moaning and screaming.


 * The rumor carne true. The Muslim force laid siege of the temple and the battle ensued. At that time a dance of beautiful girls (devdasis) was going on in temple to appease the idol and all Rajput chiefs who had come to defend the temple were busy in enjoying the function. When the Muslim invaders attacked, the Rajputs took to their heels. The priests, however, fought bravely and were killed in large numbers at the altar. Sultan Mahmood demolished the idol of Somnath and started towards Ghazni with a Caravan of Camels laden with gold, silver and precious jewels.


 * vkvora 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fifty Thousand Devotees praying inside were worshippers

 * http://www.boloji.com/history/004.htm


 * The Shiva temple of Somnath was one of his last targets. Somnath in Gujarat (Saurashtra) had a fortified temple with its most sacred and celebrated lingam.  The people, however, were pacifists and defenseless.  In 1025, Mahmud with only cavalry and camels crossed the Thar Desert and surprised the residents of Somnath.  When the soldiers scaled the walls with ladders all they found inside were defenseless worshippers.  Fifty thousand devotees praying to the lingam and weeping passionately with hands clasped around their necks were massacred in cold blood.  The marauders looted twenty million dirhams-worth of gold and silver.  Mahmud himself took great pleasure in destroying the stone lingam, after stripping it off its gold ornaments.  Bits of the lingam were sent back to Ghazni and incorporated into the steps of its new mosque to be trampled and perpetually defiled by the faithful.
 * vkvora 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * According to most historians, Mahmud invaded India seventeen times to crush the power of the Hindu Rajas and Maharajas who were always busy planning conspiracies against him. After defeating Tarnochalpal in 1021, Mahmud formally annexed Punjab. After the fall of Punjab, the Hindu think tank assembled at Somnath - which was more of a political center than a temple - to plan a big war against Mahmud. He took all the Rajas and Maharajas by surprise when he attacked Somnath and crushed the Hindu headquarter of political intrigue. With the destruction of Somnath he broke the backbone of the Hindus in the region and thus had no need to attack India again. Mahmud also obtained formal recognition of his sovereignty from the Abbasid Khalifah, al-Qadir Billah, who also conferred upon him the titles of Yamin-ud-Dawlah and Amin-ul-Millah. He spent his last five years in dealing with the affairs of Ghazni and in making plans to conquer Central Asia.
 * vkvora 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Vora, dont know the sources from where you gather strength to utter fanciful assertions.. For starters, Mahmud invaded India even after the sack of Somnath...He entered into a war with the Jats of North India in that invasion...There is simply no evidence of any gathering of Hindu kings being held at Somnath..nor was it any 'political centre'...In fact, many of the Rajput kingdoms had offered unmolested passage to the armies of Mahmud on route to Somnath on promise of safety from future invasions. Secondly, had the Hindu kings united to face Mahmud, perhaps Somnath would not have been destroyed. Thirdly, all knew of the invasion of Somnath. Anyways, even with your strong imagination, I am sure that you will find that keeping a 1500 km trek of an army through the Indian heartland, a secret, is too much


 * ankush135 16:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the most important Pilgrimages in the world.

 * http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4893&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


 * The Pilgrimage for Lord Shiva at Somnath was held in the hearts of the Hindus as one of the most important Pilgrimages in the world. According to Al Kasnivi, an Arab Historian 10,000 villages belonged to the temple, A mountain of wealth was inside which consisted of gold, diamonds, rubies, and jems. These were the offerings from the civilians, and did not include the ones from the Kings! The temple hired 1000 priests who chanted Vedic hymns 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and year round. 500 singers and dancers were employed by the temple to entertain the devotees. 1000's of valuable gold statues (Vigrahas) rested inside the temple walls. Early writers describe the temple tower (Gopuram) as touching the skies. A Temple of this magnitude located on the shoreline of Gujarat seemed like a piece of heaven, and drastically boosted the spiritual devotion of it's visitors. During auspicious days, one hundred thousand Hindus (1 lakh) visited the temple with ecstatic devotion from all over the subcontinent. Note: this was a thousand years ago, when the population of Bharath wasn't nearly what it is now . The wealth of the Somnath temple had reached the ears of the Mahmud. He headed to Southern Gujarat with his terrifying; ruthless army thinking it was going to be as easy as taking candy from a baby. When he got there, he said, "So this is the rich temple?" and continued forward to be astonished by the number of people who opposed him. Mahmud looked at his Officers. "Hurry up and get rid of these jokers." He said as his army shot off with their weapons, at the crowed like and unleashed army of hyenas running at a group of defenseless cows. They hacked and they hacked and they hacked. But the people just kept coming.
 * vkvora 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslims destroying the Temple and Hindu rebuilding

 * Ghazni Mohammed descended on Somnath in 1024 when the temple was so prosperous that it has 300 musicians, 500 dancing girls and 300 barbers to shave the heads of visiting pilgrims. There is a description to this effect by Al Biruni, an Arab traveller. After a two-day battle, Ghazni Mohammed carted off its fabulous wealth and also destroyed the temple, thus setting a precedent of Muslims destroying the temple and Hindus rebuilding it, for it was razed again in 1297, 1394 and finally in 1706 by Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperor who was notorious for such acts. vkvora 11:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Somnath, History by Romila Thapar

 * According to "Somnath: The Many Voices of History" by Romila Thapar, the excavation of the temple site showed no evidence of repeated reconstruction of the temple. It is therefore unlikely that the temple was destroyed and rebuilt as many times as some people here are claiming. 68.228.58.63 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Take care to read 'Somanath, The Shrine Eternal' by K M Munshi. It gives pictures and details of excavations conducted, and a report by the ASI which shows at least three layers of destruction and re construction


 * However, contrary to the prevelant opinion, the same structure was not rebuilt 7 times. After the fourth temple had been destroyed, the New Somnath was contructed some distance away. It was this structure which was later rebuilt by Rani Ahalyabai. The present temple stands at the place where the original structure stood, which was dated more than 14 centuries old.

Renaming to Somnath Temple
I would like the article to be renamed to Somnath Temple, to indicate that it is religious structure. Otherwise the non-Indian readers might not get the context right. Kindly give me your comments Balajiviswanathan 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I support renaming for the reason you give. It seems to be exclusively a temple, so IMO it would be better to call it a temple to be clear what the article is about. Mattisse(talk) 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Somanth Top.JPG
Image:Somanth Top.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)