Thread by @rkkaulsr

This is a review of @AudreyTruschke : What the myth of ‘love jihad’ tells us about the Hindu Right scroll.in/article/100600… via @scroll_in
The main body is about Jonaraja the Kashmirian historian's telling about converted Malik Saifuddin and "Brahminical privilege."

Saifuddin was previously known as Suha Bhatta & then as Suha the Turk. He was chief advisor to the King Sikandar Shah in late 14th century. Audrey does not give the king's complete name Butsikan (Iconoclast). Similar to historians who name Babur but do not put in Ghazi. Why hide?

Audrey begins by stating that "many Kashmiris adopted Islam, although we still know little about the mechanisms and timing of these conversions." But in the story by the historian Jonaraja, he provides very specific examples. One such story is below.

Verse 608: There were two merchants Bhatta Simha and Kastuta and there was the preceptor Nirmala. To avoid the heavy Gizya tax imposed by Suha the Turk, the first two converted. But Nirmala renounced all of his possessions as worthless as straw and kept his identity.

Audrey states that Jonaraja gives a standard reason for this dismal state of affairs that is well-worn in premodern Sanskrit literature : the evils of the Kali Yuga (kalidoṣeṇa, v. 594).

But she glosses over Verse 575 "And so it was that Muslim scholars put an end to the local (Hindu) religious customs of Kashmir, like storms destroy woods or locusts rice plants. Amir Sayyid Muhammad (Hamdani) was the most distinguished among them."

Audrey calls "Jonaraja cagey about what motivated Suha Bhatta’s alleged enmity against the formidable Brahmanical edifice of power through exclusive access to religious rites." Alleged?

Jonaraja was not a blogger or an academic but instead was commissioned to write his history by King Budshah, son of Sikandar the psychopath. Budshah would have had the history read to him.If anything Jonaraja would have been circumspect. Nothing cagey but honesty as we see below.

Verse 396 (Suha the Turk) had received religious instruction from the barbarians and spurred the Sultan into razing the God’s images to the ground.Verse 597 The Sultan neglected his duties as a ruler and instead took delight day and night in demolishing the sculptures of the gods

Verse 603 There was no fortification, no town, no village, nor a grove, where Suha would have spared one house of the Gods. Verse 604 When only hearsay had remained of the images of all of the deities, he felt a pleasureable sensation as if he had been relieved of disease.

Audrey states that "I am uncertain how much of this narrative is rooted in reality." But we have Hamdani who wrote profusely and published his infamous commandments on Kashmiri Brahmins. Hassan, Firishta, all the way upto Walter Lawrence have written about these tyrannical times.

How bad was it? Verse 659 Terrified, some poisoned (themselves), some hung (themselves) and others drowned (themselves). Many another Brahmin committed suicide by jumping from a precipice. Verse 543 or into the fire.

Verse 661 The depraved Suha the Turk boasted of the pleasures it gave him when he heard the Brahmins screaming.

Audrey complains, "Jonaraja gives little sense of caring about non-Brahmins or even conceptualising other Hindus. " But Jonaraja does do so. See below.

Verse 654 Of evil conduct, he (Suha the Turk) put a stop to Naga sacrifices and processions as well as to related (Hindu customs). Verse B 765 Suha caused the Sultan to have the broken (pieces of the) colossal Buddha statue made of bell metal turned into coins bearing his name.

Audrey accuses Jonaraja of "protecting elite interests and social dominance...who advances Brahmanical privilege without shame or apology." But Professor Walter Slaje who is the foremost scholar, translator of Jonaraja has never used the word privilege which is a Audrey creation.

What Slaje has used is affiliation and identity and community. But in Suha the Turk's shariat world to not be a Muslim was a crime. What these "Brahmin privileges" were is amply revealed when the son King Budshah reversed the Kashmiri Brahmin genocide.

Verse 769 The Sultan (Budshah) would in no way tolerate an imbalance of (any of) the two world views (of the Hindu and Muslim creeds) like a merchant (would in any way tolerate an imbalance) beyond the proper worth in the pans of a pair of scales.

Verse 770. The severely depressed Turks no longer oppressed the Brahmins – as in the past. The Sultan eager to `acquaint himself with their knowledge, made all the Pandits return to their home country.

B 105 Sultan Budshah restored again whatever had been destroyed by Suha in the country of Kashmir. He told Sirya to set in motion (the performance) of Naga sacrifices, pilgrimages, etc. & then retransferred to the educated (Hindus) the (ownership of the) land stolen by the Turks.

He reduced the gizya, the heavy annual tax of 2 silver palas (levied by Suha) on the Brahmins because of the retention of their affiliation to their class which was very difficult to raise to the amount of only one silver masa .

B 1082 The training of the young in the traditional areas of knowledge, in Veda recitation, etc. (which had been) abandoned by Suha was resumed by the erudite (ruler) through supporting the learned (teachers) with a living.

Were the Kashmiri Brahmins seeking undue privilege or was it a cry for Justice for their rights to life, liberty and property? Should we all today seek good scholarship? @HinduAmerican @sunandavashisht @AdityaRajKaul @kaul_utpal @subhash_kak @AartiTikoo @kp_global @amitabhmattoo

@Sunilraina10 @DrAgnishekhar @SrinagarGirl @VikramZutshi