Contesting established and institutionalised narratives on the destruction of

Buddhist establishments by the Turk-Afghans in Bihar and Bengal:

marginalisation and exclusion of archaeological methods and data

[In 2014, Prof. D. N. Jha wrote a short piece in the online portal Kafila entitling `How
history was unmade at Nalanda’ [ https://kafila.online/2014/07/09/how-history-was-
unmade-at-nalanda-d-n-jha/]. I added a few comments in the comments section of the
article regarding the discrepancies and limitations of analytical methodology in the
narration of wholesale destruction of the Buddhist establishments by the Turks. It was
back in 2014 and we have more archaeological evidence from different parts of Bengal and
Bihar to falsify the established and widely circulated narratives. At this point of my
understanding, I think one of the key problems in the construction and normalization of
the entire ‘iconoclastic’ narrative founded upon the methodology of archaeological
excavation and surveying and the limitations of published data. Archaeological evidence,
retrieved systematically and published in reference to their contextual association, might
be immensely useful for rethinking the religious traditions and their encounter.
Interpretation based solely upon textual sources may often lead to spurious conclusions.
This is not to say, I clarify, that textual sources are inferior or abandoned. Ideological bias
and interpretive limits are also present in the collection, documentation, analyses and
reporting of archaeological data. The problem, however, is the dominance of uncritical
appropriation of textual sources by relegating the archaeological data as secondary and as
complementary. We may talk elaborately about these problems of scholastic tradition
further. I have archived the comments for my research purposes. At this moment, my
comments are given below in order to clarify our position in the debate without any editing
and corrections. Swadhin, 20/08/2020]

COMMENTS
09/07/2014 AT 9:11 PM

Firstly I would like to express my respect to Prof. D. N. Jha. As a student of Buddhism

and archaeology of Buddhism – if there is any discipline like this exists -, I have some
observations on the topic. They are as follows:

1
– The narrative of destruction of Nalanda Mahavihara by Ikhtyar al-Din Bakhtyar Khalji
has not been merely a RSS narrative. This narrative is officially endorsed by the Indian
state. Just at the entrance of present monumental remains of the Nalanda, a narration about
the destruction of the vihara by Bakhtyar Khalji has been permanently installed on the
stone panel for the visitors since a very long time. The panels are installed by
Archaeological Survey of India. I encountered it during my first visit to Nalanda in 2008.
The (his)story of plundering of Buddhist establishments by ‘Muslim invaders’ has been
endorsed, I claim, not only by ‘Hinduttva’ narratives, they have also been normalized by
simplified and linear secular historical discourses. Even in case of Somapura Mahavihara
in Bangladesh, the same narrative has been institutionalized since its inception by excavator
K. N. Dikshit in his excavation report of 1938. We are working since 2005 in the
northwestern part of Bangladesh where Somapura Mahavihara is located and we have
found this normalized and hegemonic narrative very problematic on many grounds. I am
not going into their details here.
– If the accuracy of the Tibetan accounts is questioned – which is quite valid from different
grounds – then the narrations of Minhaj could also be challenged as Tabaqat – i – Naasiri
was written more than 40 years later than the expedition by Bakhtyar. Major Raverty
translated this book by comparing and cross-checking twelve manuscript versions. Many
archaeologists and historians have used all these sources with great caution. In spite of their
inaccuracy, exaggeration and often, inconsistency, these texts have remained valuable for
the archaeologists and historians because of the scarcity of relevant and reliable sources.
– The decadence and abandonment of Buddhist Monasteries or Buddhist establishments
in Eastern India – as far as the growing knowledge on them suggests- were conditioned by
multiple factors. It is spurious to put the responsibility on the Turks ( I prefer to use ‘Turks’
instead of ‘Muslims’, as ‘Muslim’ as a collective identity and historically specific category
cannot be projected to 13th -14th century CE. It is a much later construction. See, Beyond
Turks and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, eds by D.
Gilmartin and B. B. Lawrence. The construction and representation of collective identity
was not essentially religious in the secular and modern sense. (see, Representing the other?
Sanskrit Sources and the Muslims by B. D. Chattopadhyaya). The construction of ‘Muslims’
as a category and representation of them as invaders and destroyer have their own
historicity in the colonial and Orientalist historiography.

2
– The increasing body of archaeological research has compelled us also to rethink Buddhist
Monasteries as ‘Universities’ and ‘as place of learning and austere practice of renunciant
Buddhist Monks’. I think we have simply projected the modern and Eurocentric idea and
notion of ‘university’ on the early Buddhist Monasteries. Recent works (for example, by
Gregory Schopen and by Jonathan Silk) have been quite illuminating in the sense that these
works have brought to fore evidences from textual, archaeological and epigraphic sources
and these new perspectives have compelled us to rethink the essentialized construction of
Buddhist Vihara/Mahavihara/Viharika as universities or colleges or only as academic
institutions. Buddhist sanghas had played a variegated role in relation to laity and they were
not simply dissociated from the mundane. These constructions of
mahavihara/vihara/viharika as educational institutions could be linked to the processes
and structures of romantic secular historiography of Buddhism as well (see, The British
Discovery of Buddhism by P. Almond).
– Nalanda Mahavihara, as a constellation of several vihara, had a hinterland zone and it
had a economic and social backdrop. We must remember that monasteries had become
large scale landholders on around 7th – 8th century CE and they had a direct and indirect
relation to agrarian and trade activities. The hinterland zone of Nalanda Mahavihara with
various rural settlements had a close connection to the functioning of the monastic
activities and life, along with royal and non-royal patronage. The causes of the decadence
and abandonment of this Buddhist establishment must be sought into the failure of the
prolonged functioning of the networks between the sangha and laity, changes in the
reciprocal agrarian relations and also the changes in the landscape and environmental
variables. Putting all the blame on sectarian and religious conflicts is often simplifying and
homogenizing. This is not to say that the conflicts had nothing to do with the disruption
of the life and activities of the Buddhist sangha of these establishments. But the conflicts
were a continuous process and were not essentially sectarian (or ‘religious’) as it is shown,
for example, by the attack of army of Vangala(?) in c.11th century CE on Somapura
Mahavihara. There are evidences of, moreover, attacks (or conflicts and destruction) from
archaeological sources, especially, in case of Somapura Mahavihara. Changes in the
methodology of archaeological researches may provide the same for other monastic
establishments in Bihar region as well including Nalanda Mahavihara.

3
We need to change our conceptions and practices on the history and archaeology of
Buddhism in India.

Thanking you,
Swadhin Sen
Associate Professor
Department of Archaeology
Jahangirnagar University
Bangladesh

-----------------------------

12/07/2014 AT 1:45 PM

Evidence of firing activities have been found in the excavation of several other monastic
establishments, even in Bangladesh. For example, in Somapura Mahavihara we have found
more than one event of firing. In Jagaddal Vihara there is evidence of firing activities. From
archaeological points of view,

First, we need to understand the firing event as anthropogenic, not accidental.

Second, as I have already mentioned in my previous note, there are evidence of

conflagration even before the thirteenth century CE, especially in case of Somapura
Mahavihara.

Thirdly, its is relatively easy to date these events through calibrated radiocarbon dating.
The evidence from Telhara mound must be dated stratigraphically and through
chronometric dating. Even if the date corresponds to 13th – 14th century CE, it doesn’t
prove that the fire was part of the attack and destruction perpetrated by Bakhtyar.

Fourthly, a reliable and accurate corroboration between an event interpreted from

archaeological context and an event recognized from textual and epigraphic sources. This

4
analogy between different sources which are interpreted through different methods is
extremely crucial. An event in textual narrative cannot essentially be reflected in
archaeological evidence.

It is only assumed that Odantapuri Mahavihara is located in present Bihar Sharif. As far as
my knowledge goes, no archaeological or epigrapahic material has attested to the fact that
the Odantapuri Mahavihara was on this place. The textual reference to the destruction of
Odantapuri mahavihara ( I am not sure about the exact reference in Tabaqaat) must be
checked and verified before incorporating it into any hegemonic narrative.

We must not put all the responsibilities upon the Turks. This is not to claim that Turkish
army didn’t attack any monastery.

My objection is about,

– uncritical endorsement of a ubiquitous narrative of ‘Muslim’ invasion and destruction

which has very weak evidential basis.

– about the methodology of interpretations.

History writing is always a political act. Political in the sense that it requires to deal with
past human lifeways – continuities and contingencies. The agency of the archaeologists and
historians are conditioned by various factors. What matters most is to be rigorous in the
application of methods and to be able to take positions in the conditions of inequality and
repression with the support of a rigorous methodology.

The history of Buddhism and Buddhist establishment in eastern India and in Bangladesh
needs the incorporation of that kind of methodology.
---------------------

04/09/2014 AT 11:42 PM

I am also taking the points raised by Mr. James Anderson as straightly as possible. Without
referring to the sources, it not intellectually and politically correct to raise questions within the
framework of a debate which is very crucial not only academically but also in terms of the profound

5
implications of the debate in the living of the billions of people in South Asia. I found it
problematic to term one argument as ‘lie’ without necessarily bringing forth the evidences in
support of the ‘truth’. What follows is my modest response.
Let me take the privilege to cite from the illuminating introduction to the Bangla translation of
three tabquāt narrating the events in Bengal (tabquāt is a plural of the word tabquat denoting a
story, if the word is directly translated from the Persian) by the eminent archaeologist and historian
of Bangladesh – A. K. M. Zakariah. Tabquāt-i-Nasiri comprises 23 tabquats. Minhaz narrated the
(hi)story of the Muslim world from the earliest times. The title of the book means stories of Sultan
Nasir āl-Din Mahmud or stories written for Sultan Nasir āl-Din who became the sultan of Delhi
in 644 A. H. (1246 CE). Minhaz came to India in 624 A.H. (1227 CE) and he finished this book
in 658 (1260 A. H.). He was the eye witness of many events in Indian subcontinent during this
particular period. It is not certain when he started writing this book. The information about the
period before his coming he had to depend on various informants. But it could be assumed that it
took a certain period of time to collect information regarding the events in India prior to his
coming in 624 CE and even regarding during his lifetime in India.
There is not specific reference to the exact date of Mohammad Bakhtyar’s attack of Bihar in
Tabquāt-i-Nasiri. After his conquest of Bihar, Bakhtyar attacked Naodiha of Bengal and conquered
it when Laksman Sen, the king of Sen Dynasty of Bengal was ruling in that part and middle part
of present Bangladesh. Great controversy regarding the location of Naodiha and the date of the
attack by Bakhtyar obscure different aspects of that particular event. Several historians contend
that the Naodiha is present Nadia of West Bengal, India. There are sufficient historical evidences,
however, for the views that do not accept this identification of Naodiha with Nadia. On the basis
of numismatic evidence, it is hypothesized that Bakhtyar conquered the Gauda ( the region in
Bengal including Naodiha was also identified as Gauda by Minhaz) on 10 May of 1205 CE. On
the basis of the description by Minhaz and the coin issued by Mohammad Ghuri (known as ‘Gauda
Vijaya/the conquest of Gauda’ coin), it has been assumed that Bakhtyyar’s attack of Bihar and
destruction of Odantapuri Bihar – narrated by Minhaz – took place at least two years before his
conquest of Naodiha. Now it is up to the readers to determine the ‘true’ time that elapsed between
the event of the attack of Bihar, as narrated by Minhaz, and the writing and completion of Tabquāt-
i-Nasiri.
I am not simply interested here to engage with the work of William Darlymple, as his works are
not the central and relevant frame of reference of this debate. But what I have already pointed at
covertly and what I would like emphasize further is the perceived notion of ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ in
reference to ‘textual source’ and its use in the writing of history. I have already mentioned the

6
evidential anomalies of Tibetan sources with regard to writing history. I claim that Tabquāt-i-Nasiri
should be treated as much cautiously and critically as the Tibetan sources. I want to cite just one
example of exaggeration from Tabqāt as it is not possible to engage with all the others within this
space of debate. Minhaz mentioned that Bakhtyar conquered Naodiha with the cavalry composed
of only twenty horsemen. This stupendous narration has been questioned by many historians and
archaeologists of Bengal. Even if it is considered that Laksman Sen became weak and old as a king
at that time, considering the strength of Sena kingdom it was not possible to accept the narration
of the conquer the one of the central seats of Sena Kingdom with an army of twenty-one men
including Bakhtyar.
For those who are not aware of the methodology of history writing of pre-colonial India, it is
necessary to mention that the ‘text’ versus ‘history’ debate have had attracted a number of
prominent historians. The historiography is still enmeshed into this debate which could be
identified as essentially connected to and embedded into the debate around the dichotomy of ‘fact’
and ‘fiction’ and ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’. Anybody who is interested may make a sincere
effort to get an idea about the debate and profound impact it has imparted on the historiography
of South Asia. Without considering the conditions and structures within which a text is produced
and later, used as a source of history writing, it could be scandalous to differentiate the ‘fact’ from
the ‘fiction’. We have found many instances in our time of modernity that have already blurred the
boundaries of these categories. I consider the ongoing debate on Nalanda as an attempt to question
the taken for granted assumption about that boundary. This debate also supports my assumption
that the debate runs deeply into the public consciousness in South Asia and beyond.
Peace be upon everyone.

[This is not an academic paper or systematically organized article. This is just a collection of my
comments. Please, forgive me for all the grammatical and stylistic mistakes. I intend to write one
or more systematic papers in future.]