Source on Sikandar Butshikan

“Sikandar’s reign marks a turning-point in the history of Kashmir from social and religious point of view. It appears that although the rulers were Muslims the State was hitherto predominantly Hindu, and even the Muslim kings and peoples were not very orthodox in their belief. This is proved, among other things, by the Hindu names like Lakshmi and Sobha borne by the queens, consecration of a golden liiga by the latter (v. 671), and the performance of a yajna (sacrifice) by Qutb-ud-din to avert famine (v. 637). This. was probably due to the paucity of Muslims in the country. But a great change took place during the reign of Sikandar. A large immigration of Muslims from outside flooded the country, and there seems to be little doubt that they brought with them that fanatic iconoclastic zeal which distinguished Islam in other parts of India, but from which Kashmir was happily free up to this time. This follows from the detailed account of Jonaraja from which the following extracts are quoted: “The king had a fondness for the Yavanas..... Many Yavanas. left other sovereigns and took shelter under this king who was renowned for charity. Muhammada of Mera country became theit (that is, of the Yavanas) chief. The king waited on him daily, humble as a servant, and like a student he daily took his lessons from him. He placed Muhammada before him, and was attentive to him like a slave. As the wind destroys the trees, and the locusts the sali crop, so did the Yavanas destroy the usages of Kasmira. Attracted by the gifts and honours which the king bestowed, and by his kindness, the mlechchhas entered Kasmira even as locusts enter a good field of corn.” They occupied all the offices of the State and became friends of the king. Sikandar evidently learnt his lessons well, and his reign was disgraced by a series of acts, inspired by religious bigotry and iconoclastic zeal, for which there is hardly any parallel even in the annals of the Muslim rulers of India. His minister, Sihabhatta, who had abjured Hindu faith for Islam, and was “instructed by the mlechchhas, instigated the king io break down the images of gods”. Whether the king required any such instigation after the lessons. he had learnt at the feet of Muhammada of Mera, cannot be definitely said. In any case there cannot be any doubt that Sthabhatta’s advice fell on willing ears. The result is thus described by Jonaraja: ‘The king forgot his kingly duties and took a delight day and night, in breaking images.......... He broke the images of Martanda, Vishaya, Isana, Chakrabhrit and Tripuresvara......... There was no city, no town, no village, no wood where Sitha the Turushka left the temples of gods unbroken.” But this was not all. An attempt was made to destroy the caste of the Brahmanas by force, and those who resisted it were subjected to heavy fines. The Muslim version of the activities of Sikandar is given in detail by Firishta who, of course, includes them among his “good institutions”. According to Firishta, Sikandar issued ‘‘orders proscribing the residence of any person other than Muhammadans in Kashmir; and he required that no man should wear the mark on his forehead, or any woman be permitted to burn with her husband’s corpse. Lastly, he insisted on all the golden and silver images being broken and melted down, and the metal coined into money”’.*24 No one can fail to be struck with the contrast between Kashmir under Shihab-ud-din and Sikandar and note that much water had flown down the Vitasta during a quarter of acentury. Firishta continues: “Many of the Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Muhammadans. After the emigration of the Brahmins, Sikandar ordered all the temples in Kashmir to be thrown down’. Some temples were levelled with the ground, and in one case, we are told that Sikandar, who was personally present, did not desist till the building was entirely razed to the ground, and its foundations dug up. The Muslim historians inform us that for having broken the Hindu temples Sikandar got the title of Butshikan, or the destroyer of idols. Immediately after this Firishta remarks: “Among other good institutions of Sikandar was the prohibition of vending wine, and the relinquishment of all export duties’’. It has been urged by some that it was not the Sultan but Sihabhatta and other converts who were responsible for the religious persecution.?! But, as Jonaraja has observed in this connection, it is an established rule, that the master is responsible for the fault of his servant.°2 Besides, the account of Firishta, quoted above, makes it clear that Sikandar was not as innocent in the matter as is pretended by his supporters, for he personally supervised the demolition of temples and, in at least one case, he was not satisfied by merely razing a temple to the ground, but saw to it that its foundations were dug up. This one instance, if true, is sufficient to prove his personal zeal and bigotry. After all, it was not Suhabhatta but Sikandar who was honoured by his co-religionists with the sobriquet Butshikan (destroyer of idols). (377-379)”