మన చీకటి చిన్నయ్య గారు కొత్త రూట్లో వచ్చారండోయ్! ఈ సారి ఏకంగా థాపరమ్మని ఎత్తుకొచ్చారు. 1999 లో ఆవిడ గారు వ్రాసిన ఒక వ్యాసన్ని ఉటంకించేశారు. మిగతావాళ్ళు ఇగ్నోర్ చేసేస్తారని ఆయనకి ఆయనే కితాబిచ్చుకున్నారు. ఇంతకీ ఆ వ్యాసంలో ఆవిడ వ్రాసిందేమిటో (వ్రాసింది అనేకన్నా వక్రీకరించింది అనటం సబబేమో - ఎంతయినా వక్రీకరణల స్పెషలిస్టు కదా ఆమె) చూద్దాం.
"I would argue that Mahmud of Ghazni's raid on the Somanatha temple did not create a dichotomy, because each of the many facets involved in the perception of the event, consciously or subconsciously, was enveloped in a multiplicity of other contexts as well. These direct our attention to varying representations, both overt and hidden, and lead us to explore the statements implicit in these representations. The assessment of these facets may provide us with more sensitive insights into our past"
So far so good. ఈ రాతలకి, ఆ తరవాత ఇచ్చిన టాక్ కి సరయిన కౌంటర్ రైట్ వింగ్ వాళ్ళు ఇచ్చారు - ఈ వ్యాసం లో వీ.వీ.ఎస్ శర్మ ద్వారా. శర్మ థాపర్ ని చీల్చి చెండాడిన విధంబెట్లనిన :
Abstract: Several historians of the Marxist camp have been waging a jihad, since several decades, claiming to establish new view points in the study of Indian History based on their political agenda. In the process, they attempt to make Indian History nothing more than a sequence of invasions. They view today's India as a country of diverse cultures belonging to successive invaders, ultimately knit together by the British into a single country.
The time-honoured concept of Unity in Diversity (due to Nagarjuna, stated two thousand years ago) is no longer accepted, by them, and plurality and composite culture are their new buzzwords. A significant part of their effort is in whitewashing the period of Muslim rule in India. Romila Thapar's study pertaining to the well-known event of the raid on Somanath temple in 1026 AD by Mahmud of Ghazni belongs to this category. Thapar claims that through rigorous historical analysis, she is able to provide surprising new insights of what happened. The objective of this essay is to show that her analysis is fundamentally erroneous and that her so-called new insights are largely invalid and irrelevant. Her method consists in mixing evidences with arbitrary weights to fabricate wild stories consisting of low probability scenarios. She does not appear to be aware of even the fundamental principles of evidence fusion, which is a modern field of scientific investigation providing a rigorous methodology for combining evidences from several sources of different credibilities.
వ్యాసంలోకొస్తే, ఆయన అన్నది వ్యాసంలోకొస్తే, ఆయన పెట్టింది అక్షరలా ఇరవై వాతలు:
The Scientific Approach:
It is unfortunate that none of the scientists present a, the meeting discussed about the merits of' the so-called scientific approach. There is a well known problem in Curve Fitting and Pattern Recognition. With limited data, one can fit any number of higher order curves exactly fitting the data, but the robust best estimate is often the line of best fit. Similarly, based on the evidence available, a large number of scenarios can be built and one may assign a low support or plausibility, at the most, to each of the hypotheses. The underlying logical reasoning is called Abduction, which is distinct from deduction based proof methods and inductive generalization from examples. It can, at the most, give one of several plausible explanations:
1. Prof Thapar says Prabhas has been a place of pilgrimage since the Mahabharatha time but does not want to know when the first temple has been constructed there and how many times it had been destroyed.
2. She does not mention the famous sloka of Sankaracharaya, which identifies Somanath of Sourashtra as the first of the twelve Jyotirlinga shrines in the country. It is unlikely that at the time of the Mahabharatha there was temple-worship but it was definitely well established by Sankaracharya's time. He himself established the Siva temple at Srinagar and appointed Nambudri priests at Badrinath. He established four Sankara mathas at Dwaraka, Puri, Badrinath and Sringeri.
3. She says that the idol is variously described as Sivalingam or as a female deity whom some Muslim chronicles of the period referred to as Manat, a pre-Islamic Arab goddess.
4. Ms Thapar does not seem to know that any Siva temple has both Lingam and an idol of the consort of Siva, in general. It is probable that the temple itself might have two main icons - Siva represented by the Lingam and Parvati, the female idol. The prior probability one can assign to the Siva temple hypothesis is very high compared with the alternative hypothesis based on available evidence.
5. Every hypothesis has a priori probability, which has to be carefully revised in the light of evidence observed. One has to see whether the bits of evidence are really independent. Bayes reasoning consists in deriving a posteriori probability of a hypothesis based on the strength of evidence supporting and contradicting hypotheses.
6. Evidence fusion is a complex mathematical and scientific problem and I do not think it is within the grasp of historians without adequate background in Mathematics (Shafer, 1976)
7. It is for the scientists to establish the validity of the so-called scientific approach as it is currently practised in history by some of these historians.
8. While our scientists so enthusiastically condemn the basis of Jyotir Vijnan, they are not critically evaluating the validity of the claims of rationality and the scientific content of the approaches of historians such as Romila Thapar. The same applies to several other so-called Scientific studies in History and Social Sciences. (e.g. Aryan invasion theory, race based division of Aryan and Dravidian people, Indus-Saraswathi civilisation and the latest, the genetic distances between Europeans, upper and lower caste Indians.)
9. When an interpreter pools diverse sources of evidence, he or he has to identify the credibility of the source of evidence. For example, Jaina Puranas are less reliable than Hindu Puranas for historical studies. This is admitted by Jains themselves (Jaini, 2000). The itihasa of the Mahabharatha becomes Pandava Purana. Jains were peeved by the fact that human-born Rama and Krishna were later identified as incarnations of Hindu God, Vishnu. Jains have created stories about nine Baladevas and nine Vasudevas with Balarama and Krishna being the last pair and that they have taken initiation from Jaina Thirthankara Nemi, who is described as their cousin. Jains did not have Krishna appear in the great war as Partha Sarathi (charioteer of Arjuna) and teacher of the Bhagavad Gita but projected him only as an instigator and an advocate of bravery in warfare. Jaina evidence which Prof. Thapar cited, stating that Siva Lingas and Hindu idols withstood the attacks only supports the destruction of Hindu temples by attackers. Jaina authors come up with new stories in much the same way as Prof. Thapar.
10. Any historian can propose a scenario of the sequence of event, and a theory connecting them. A priori probability of a hypothesis pertaining to each scenario will be extremely low to start with. With evidence and counter evidence accumulating, the support and plausibility of each scenario should be recalculated. A fully or partly validated truth can only result then. The complete and up-to-date evidence as available should be used at every given point of time. Prof. Thapar's method lies in implicitly giving higher weight to evidence supporting her hypothesis, while simultaneously reducing the credibility or omitting altogether the counter evidence.
11. Everybody knows that multiple viewpoints are particularly important in history. For example, the war of the queen of Jhansi (Lakshmi Bai), Nana Saheb and others during 1857-1859, has been called �The Sepoy Mutiny� by British Historians. This becomes �The First War of Indian Independence� in the eyes of Indian Historians. Marx and Engels also used the latter term in some of their writings. Karl Marx outlines the job of British in India, which includes complete destruction of Hindu society. This continues to be the mission of historians of the Marxist camp such as Mrs. Thapar
12. The textbooks of Pakistan might provide a new viewpoint. It is interesting to see how historians of Pakistan are viewing the role of Mahmud of Ghazni on the course of Indian Sub-continental History of the last millennium.
13. According to Munshi, the destruction of Somanath was not a single event. In his words, �Here was the romance in stone, stretching out to 2000 years and unfolding a unique story of devotion and heroism, of vandalism and desecration, of defeat and triumph of the best and the worst in man epitomized in a single symbol.�
14. In the reign of Sultan Allu'd-Din Khilji (1296 tol3l6), Ulugh Khan and Nusrat Khan marched against Gujarat again. After the destruction of the Manat idol by Sultan Mahmud, the Brahmins have set up Somanath idol for the worship of Hindus. The idol was carried to Delhi for the people to tread upon. This source Tarikh-I-Firuz Shahi also mentions construction of a mosque at the site of the temple (Goel, 1993 and Shourie, 1998). Romila Thapar conveniently clubs all Muslim chronicles into one group of less credibility.
15. The greatest weakness of her study is in the isolated study of Somanath. It is not clear whether the event she is referring to is the first destruction. The entire history of Mahmud's multiple invasions and the pattern of pillage up to Babur needs a holistic study. The destruction of icons continues to this date. The 1947 partition of India is real destruction of an icon, the geographical Indian subcontinent. The completion of Babur's destruction saga till Ayodhya demolition of 1992 and its follow up through anniversary celebrations till today in various parts of the country is another. The Taliban's destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas is in sharp contrast to the hypotheses of Prof. Thapar he should build a more plausible scenario.
16. When Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed by Taliban, many journalists in India talked about the destruction of the Babri structure at Ayodhya in 1992. The action of Hindu groups, at the most, is a peaceful symbolic act, and a culmination of a thousand year heartburn of Hindus, compounded by a fifty year neglect of the dispute by the Government and police excesses the previous year at the site of Ram Janmabhoomi. It is at the most, a civil disobedience Satyagraha-type of act done in broad day light, while the reaction of some Muslim groups to it took the shape of anniversary celebrations of the event with bomb blasts in trains and public places. These are blatant terrorist acts. One might also be tempted to compare this with the act of some state governments distributing temple lands, as in Simhachalam, A.P. Another example is the demolition of thousands of private houses for widening of urban roads and extension of airport runways. The purpose of these examples is to compare the relative strengths of the Hindu, the Muslim and the secular democratic government-sponsored destructive activities.
17. For a fuller description of Somanath's history, the book of K.M. Munshi may be consulted. He was a Congressman (and not of today's BJP) and a recognized man of letters from Gujarat. His hurt on seeing the ruins at Somnath had not definitely originated in Bengal or London. If an Indian (particularly someone from Karnataka or Andhra) looks at the ruins of Hampi, the destruction of which happened much later at the hands of unified Bahmani forces, he will similarly feel, whatever NCERT history texts might say.
18. Whitewashing Muslim period of Indian history is a futile exercise. Mahmuds of Ghazni even exist today. To understand the mindset of such people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the book 'The Quranic Concept of War' may be consulted. The author is Brig. S.K. Malik of the Pakistan army with a foreword by the late dictator of Pakistan, Gen. Zia Ul Haq. (See review of N.S. Rajaram, 2001).
19. The evidence regarding some gates showing Egyptian carvings from Afghanistan obtained by the British on the assumption that they were Somanath temple gates does not lend any support to Prof. Thapar's theory directly and is irrelevant for the problem itself. Her motive might be to indirectly suggest that the whole story of temple-destruction is a myth.
20. The suggestion of Thapar mentioning that later inscriptions at Somanath, when the temple was reconstructed by Kumarapala do not mention the event of Mahmud's destruction is ridiculous. Already several destructions were over and it was the fifth temple. The inscriptions were not intended to be school textbooks tracing History of Gujarat and the saga of previous destruction of the temple. They referred to the appointment then of Bhava Brihaspathi as chief priest and could not foresee emergence of the likes of Romila Thapar centuries later. How can this inscription be even an evidence for her present problem of study?
When combining evidence from several sources, one has to be careful whether he is doing data fusion, information fusion or decision (or interpretation) fusion. The last two narratives out of the five she selected can not even be considered as primary evidence for the problem considered by her. Similarly, her current research cannot be a source of primary evidence in obtaining a true picture of an event of 1026 AD
ఇక ఆమె చెప్పిన కట్టు కథలకి కౌంటర్...
In summary, Romila Thapar's paper on Somanath appears to be in the nature of outlining some plausible new theories by considering only a few of the available evidences. It, however, does not establish any scientifically validated truth concerning a well known event of Indian History. By talking about the less credible story of Manat, Prof. Thapar's motive appears to be to cleverly shift the apparent blame about destruction of a Hindu temple from Mahmud of Ghazni to the great prophet, who is the founder of Islam itself, by giving high credibility to the Manat hypothesis and citing several irrelevant ones to sidetrack the issue. Her theory fails to give appropriate weights to all the available evidence on the event or subsequent ones. It does not appear to put forth any credible theory closer to the truth. In the classical Indian science of debate (Tarka Sastra), Prof. Thapar's argument is called �Wrangling� (or Vitanda Vada). The wrangler has no hypothesis to establish or no concern for truth but the only aim is to create doubt regarding well established facts.
Romila Thapar's problem is common with that of other members of Marxist group, entrenched in places such as the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Their aim is to rewrite history with a present political agenda. In the words of Arun Shourie, their contribution to history is �a diabolic inversion. As to the inclusive religion, the pluralist spiritual search of our people and land, they have projected as intolerant, narrow-minded, obscurantist. As to the exclusivist, totalitarian, revelatory religions and ideologies - Islam, Christianity, Marxism-Leninism - they have made out to be epitomes of tolerance, open-mindedness, democracy and secularism�. This appears to be her real motive and not the TRUTH of the event of 1026 AD. The same motive is seen in the condemnation of present American military action in Afghanistan by all the Marxists.
Distortions of history cannot provide greater communal amity in India. No sensible person blames the present day simple Muslim citizens of India for the deeds of foreign invaders of bygone days. A study of history helps in the understanding of the achievements and the failures of our forefathers and helps in building a future without such mistakes. On October 31, 2001, speaking on the occasion of the completion of the golden jubilee celebrations of the reconstructed Somanath temple, the Prime Minister Sri A.B. Vajpayee reminded people of India that the Somanath temple has always been and is the symbol of the Country's culture, prosperity and national self-respect, while the ever-present terrorist elements resemble closely those who repeatedly attacked and looted the temple in the past. But like the Somanath temple was rebuilt amidst its ruins, and the attackers were defeated, those who are trying to dismember India (both from inside and outside), now will also be repulsed and the country would remain a strong and united nation. Marxists have always been playing a negative and destructive role in India and crude attempts of falsifying history such as the current study of Prof. Romila Thapar concerning Somanath will stand exposed before the discerning Indian public.
చీకటి కమ్యూనిష్టు మేతావులూ, లింకులు కాపీ పేస్టు చెయ్యటం మీకే కాదు మాకు కూడా వచ్చు :))