纠正历史错误的危险性

 纠正历史错误的危险性

印度教复兴派是否将国家带向正确的方向？答案是大大的否定。这不仅是因为他们无情地冲击着宗教和谐的百年堡垒的墙壁，而且还因为他们试图引诱这个国家失去其推理能力和历史感。

阿伦-辛哈Updated: 2022年6月28日，星期二，01:54 AM IST

由于印度教复兴者的存在，"历史错误 "从来没有离开过新闻。我们今天在吉安瓦皮清真寺，但我们肯定迟早会去其他清真寺。因为在中世纪的印度，穆斯林统治者对寺庙的拆毁给印度人的心灵造成了极大的创伤--我们被告知，在所有这些寺庙被收回之前，印度人的心灵不会得到安宁。

我们走在正确的道路上吗？印度教的复兴者是否将国家带入了正确的方向？答案是大大的否定。不仅因为他们无情地冲击着宗教和谐的世纪堡垒的墙壁，而且还因为他们试图引诱国家失去其推理能力和历史感。

看看他们定义 "历史错误 "的方式。这些'错误'无一例外都是由中世纪印度的穆斯林统治者犯下的。现在，没有人否认穆斯林统治者拆毁了印度教寺庙。但他们是印度历史上唯一拆毁礼拜场所的人吗？难道在伊斯兰教传入印度之前就没有对宗教场所的破坏吗？

在历史学家、预言家、宗教编年史家和外国旅行者留下的古代和中世纪早期的文献中，有一些关于印度教国王在穆斯林之前的印度拆毁佛教和耆那教寺庙和修道院的描述和记载。考古学家在印度、孟加拉国和巴基斯坦的一些地方发现了印度教寺庙遗址上的佛教建筑遗迹，这些描述和参考资料得到了补充。

佛教和耆那教被印度教的婆罗门教领袖视为异端邪说，并被谴责为被遗弃的宗教意识形态，除了被抹杀之外，没有其他价值。佛教在毛利安皇帝阿育王在世时传播得很广，这也是招致婆罗门教势力对其充满敌意的因素之一，这反映在毛利安时代之后的几个世纪里，佛教徒受到广泛的迫害，其寺庙和修道院遭到破坏和亵渎。

据说，毛利时代之后夺取政权的逊伽王朝的国王普希亚米特拉（Pushyamitra）摧毁了许多佛教寺院，并在他能找到的地方杀死了佛教僧侣；孟加拉的高达国王沙山卡也是如此。据《Rajtarangini》记载，阿育王的一个统治克什米尔的沙威派后裔在他的王国里摧毁了佛教寺院。宣曾在公元7世纪游历印度时提到，沙山卡砍掉了伽耶的菩提树，而佛祖就是在这棵树下开悟的。印度教预言家们对佛教徒和耆那教徒的寺庙在商羯罗胜利的反异端运动中成为废墟感到欣慰。

著名社会学家Gail Omvedt在她的《印度的佛教》一书中写道："最后，我们出现了一个相当奇怪的情况，一个声称具有印度教那种'宽容'的宗教却不允许佛教存在。佛教和婆罗门教的教义之间似乎存在着内在的矛盾，以至于一个必须要赶走另一个。"

根据知名历史学家DN Jha的说法，考古学证据表明，印度教建筑被建立在萨纳特的废墟之上，并重复使用佛教建筑的材料，而佛陀在那里发表了他的第一次布道。萨纳特离瓦拉纳西不到15公里。如果佛教徒开始要求摧毁萨纳特的印度教建筑，并恢复其原来的建筑风格，那么以 "发现一个希夫林 "而收回该市吉安瓦皮清真寺的印度教复兴者会作何感想？

据Jha说，有证据表明，马图拉的Bhuteshwar和Gokarneshwar寺庙是在佛教遗址上建造的。对马图拉的Shahi Idgah Masjid遗址有争议的印度教复兴者，如果开始要求挖掘这两座寺庙的地基以检查其下的佛教寺庙的证据，他们会加入佛教徒吗？

据Jha说，有证据表明，马图拉的Bhuteshwar和Gokarneshwar寺庙是在佛教遗址上建造的。对马图拉的Shahi Idgah Masjid遗址有争议的印度教复兴者，如果开始要求挖开这两座寺庙的地基，检查其下的佛教寺庙的证据，他们是否会加入佛教徒的行列？

很明显，印度教复兴者在针对狭隘历史时期的 "历史错误 "时是有选择性的、偏见的和偏袒的。公平的推理会要求纠正历史错误的历史时间应扩展到古代和中世纪早期。印度教国王毁坏佛教寺庙与穆斯林国王毁坏印度教寺庙一样，都应被视为错误。敌对信仰的国王对寺庙的破坏应该是决定历史错误的基本原则，而不是寺庙的神性或拆毁国王的信仰。

实际上，我们在此并不是建议扩大历史时间，将穆斯林之前的印度的礼拜场所的破坏也包括在内。我们只是提出一个论点，说明印度教复兴者在确定历史错误时对时间是有选择性的。我们只是想表达，历史可以是一个蜂巢。如果你把你的手伸进它来采蜜，蜜蜂就会蜇你。我们不希望这种情况发生。我们希望历史上所有关于拆毁寺庙的争议都能得到解决。

古代和中世纪时期与我们印度人今天所处的时代不同。战争和征服是常见的。有的国王虽然是一个信仰的追随者，但并没有把自己的信仰强加给被征服地区的人民。但也有一些国王把他们的信仰强加给他们。他们首先摧毁了被征服领土上的其他信仰的圣地。印度教国王摧毁佛教圣地，穆斯林国王摧毁印度教圣地。

不过，在核心方面，征服者摧毁其他信仰的圣地更像是一场政治运动，而不是宗教运动。这是他计划的一部分，目的是使他的征服更安全，使他和他的王朝的统治更长久。欧洲的殖民国家鼓励基督教传教士让土著人改信他国，因为这将帮助他们获得大众的合法性和长寿。他们的理念不过是古代和中世纪印度征服国王的理念的延续。

但那些时代已经过去了。我们生活在一个民主国家，人们被允许实践他们不同的信仰。印度教复兴者所做的是试图把我们带回那些时代。而且是非常有选择性的。

在最高法院，他们对1991年《礼拜场所法》提出质疑，理由是该法武断地将1947年8月15日定为允许礼拜场所维持现状的截止日期。他们显然希望截止日期是巴布尔的到来或加兹尼的第一次突袭。他们没有意识到的是，事情不能到此为止。佛教徒和耆那教可以要求以基督之前的几个世纪为截止日期。那么，印度教的复兴者会站在哪一边呢？

(阿伦-辛哈（Arun Sinha）是一名独立记者和作家。

The perils of correcting historical wrongs

Are the Hindu revivalists taking the nation in the right direction? The answer is a big no. Not only because they are relentlessly battering at the walls of the centuries-old fort of religious harmony, but also because they are trying to seduce the nation into losing its power of reasoning and sense of history.

Arun SinhaUpdated: Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 01:54 AM IST

Thanks to Hindu revivalists, ‘historical wrong’ is never out of the news. We are at the Gyanvapi mosque today but we will surely go to other mosques sooner or later. For, so deeply traumatised is the Hindu heart by the demolition of temples by the Muslim rulers in medieval India—we are told—that it will not find rest until all those temples have been reclaimed.

Are we on the right path? Are the Hindu revivalists taking the nation in the right direction? The answer is a big no. Not only because they are relentlessly battering at the walls of the centuries-old fort of religious harmony, but also because they are trying to seduce the nation into losing its power of reasoning and sense of history.

Look at the way they define ‘historical wrongs’. These ‘wrongs’ are invariably committed by Muslim rulers in medieval India. Now, nobody denies that Muslim rulers demolished Hindu temples. But were they the only ones who demolished places of worship in Indian history? Was there no destruction of religious establishments before Islam arrived in India?

There are several descriptions and references of Hindu kings demolishing Buddhist and Jain temples and monasteries in pre-Muslim India in the ancient and early medieval literature left behind by historians, seers, religious chroniclers and foreign travellers. These descriptions and references are supplemented by the discovery of remains of Buddhist structures at the sites of Hindu temples by archaeologists at several places in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Buddhism and Jainism were looked upon by Brahmanical leaders of Hinduism as heresies and denounced as the religious ideologies of the outcasts, worthy of little else but obliteration. Buddhism spread far and wide during the Mauryan emperor Ashoka’s lifetime, and that was one of the factors that invited a great deal of hostility from the Brahmanical forces toward it, which was reflected in the widespread persecution of the Buddhists and destruction and desecration of their temples and monasteries in the centuries following the Mauryan era.

Pushyamitra, a king of the Sunga dynasty that took over power after the Mauryas, was said to have destroyed many Buddhist monasteries and killed Buddhist monks wherever he could find them; so did the Gauda king of Bengal, Shashanka. A Shaivite descendant of Ashoka ruling Kashmir destroyed Buddhist monasteries in his kingdom, according to the Rajtarangini. Hsuan Tsang in his travels through India in 7th century AD mentions that Shashanka cut down the Bodhi tree in Gaya under which the Buddha had attained enlightenment. Hindu seers have gloated over the temples of Buddhists and Jains being left in ruins in the wake of Shankara’s triumphal anti-heresy campaign.

Noted sociologist Gail Omvedt writes in her book Buddhism in India, “In the end, we have the rather strange situation where a religion claiming the kind of ‘tolerance’ which Hinduism does did not allow scope for Buddhism. There seem to have been inherent contradictions between Buddhist and Brahmanic teachings, such that one had to drive out the other.”

According to eminent historian DN Jha, archaeological evidence has been found of Hindu structures being erected above the ruins of and reusing materials of Buddhist structures at Sarnath where the Buddha delivered his first sermon. Sarnath is hardly 15 kilometres from Varanasi. How would the Hindu revivalists, who are reclaiming the Gyanvapi mosque in the city with the “discovery of a Shivling,” feel if the Buddhists start demanding destruction of the Hindu structures at Sarnath and restoration of their revered place in its original architecture?

According to Jha, there is evidence to show that the Bhuteshwar and Gokarneshwar temples at Mathura were built on Buddhist sites. Will the Hindu revivalists, who are disputing the Shahi Idgah Masjid site at Mathura, join the Buddhists if they start demanding that the foundations of the two temples be dug up to check for the evidence of a Buddhist temple beneath them?

It is clear that the Hindu revivalists are being selective, prejudicial and partisan in targeting ‘historical wrongs’ that were done in a narrow period of history. Fair reasoning would demand that the time of history for correction of historical wrongs should be extended to the ancient and early medieval periods. Destruction of a Buddhist temple by a Hindu king should be considered as wrong as destruction of a Hindu temple by a Muslim king. Destruction of a temple by a king of rival faith should be the basic principle of deciding the historical wrong, not the deity of the temple or the faith of the demolishing king.

We are not actually suggesting here that we broaden the time of history to include destruction of places of worship in pre-Muslim India. We are only making an argument to show that the Hindu revivalists are being selective about the period in identifying historical wrongs. We only mean to convey that history can be a beehive. If you thrust your hand into it for honey, bees will sting you. We do not want it to happen. We want all disputes over temple demolitions in history to be closed.

The ancient and medieval periods were different from the time in which we Indians are living today. Wars and conquests were common. There were kings who, while being followers of one faith, did not impose their faiths upon the people of the conquered territories. But there were also kings who imposed their faiths upon them. They started by destroying the shrines of other faiths in the conquered territories. Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist shrines and the Muslim kings destroyed Hindu shrines.

At the heart of it, though, the destruction of the shrines of other faiths by the conqueror was more of a political campaign than a religious campaign. It was a part of his plan to make his conquest more secure, to make his and his dynasty’s reign long. The colonial powers of Europe encouraged Christian missionaries to proselytise natives because it would help them gain popular legitimacy and longevity. Their philosophy was but a continuation of the philosophy of conquering kings in ancient and medieval India.

But those eras are gone. We are living in a democracy where people are allowed to practice their different faiths. What the Hindu revivalists are doing is trying to take us back to those eras. And very selectively.

In the Supreme Court, they are challenging the Places of Worship Act 1991 on the grounds that it arbitrarily sets a cut-off date of August 15, 1947 for allowing status quo for places of worship. They obviously want the cut-off date to be Babur’s arrival or Ghazni’s first raid. What they do not realise is that it cannot stop there. The Buddhists and Jains could demand a cut-off date of centuries before Christ. On whose side will the Hindu revivalists then be?

(Arun Sinha is an independent journalist and author)