Published On: Fri, Dec 20th, 2013

Hindu temple destructions a myth: Richard Eaton

Assertion

In an interview in the ThinkFest edition of Tehelka, historian Richard Eaton makes the following assertion:

The total number of temples that were destroyed across those six centuries (from 1000 to 1600) was 80, not many thousands as is sometimes conjectured by various people.

Facts

Muslim rulers initially came to India attracted by its enormous prosperity. However, from the very early invasions, they not only looted prosperous kingdoms and temples, but made it a point to destroy Hindu temples obeying the diktats of Islam. Equally, they built mosques using the material of the demolished temple.

Eaton, in the interview, claims that only those temples which were “politically relevant” were destroyed.

Those that were politically relevant — patronised by an enemy king or a formerly loyal king who becomes a rebel — only those temples are wiped out..

However, there’s a wealth of evidence that shows that a lot of temples were indeed destroyed during the same time that Islam entered India.

Professor Mohammed Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University in his book, Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (1924) quotes contemporary writers who spoke about Mahmud Ghazni’s plunders.

The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire and levelled with the ground.

Considering that he gave orders to destroy all the temples, that in itself raises the suspicion about Eaton’s claim of 80 temples. Assuming he didn’t manage to reach Eaton’s number, there were other Muslim kings who followed Ghazni and his precedent.

Manuscripts still preserved at the Bikaner Museum in Rajasthan throw some corroborative light. The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb had ordered the mass destruction of temples in his region. Here is an extract from Aurangzeb’s firman to the effect.

… Saiyid Faulad Khan was thereupon ordered (by the Emperor) to send one hundred beldars to demolish the Kalka temple and other temples in its neighbourhood which were in the Faujdari of the Khan himself; these men were to reach there post haste, and finish the work without a halt,” says one manuscript dated Sept 3, 1667.

Following that, Aurangzeb issued a general order to destroy all temples on 9 April, 1669.

“The Lord Cherisher of the Faith learnt that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and especially at Benaras, the Brahmin misbelievers used to teach their false books in their established schools, and their admirers and students, both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided men in order to acquire their vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish Islam, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels, and, with the utmost urgency, put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these unbelievers…

Further, an inscription at the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque in Qutb Minar says:

This fort was conquered and the Jami Masjid built in the year 587 by the Amir, the slave of the Sultan, may Allalh strengthen his helpers.  The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Delhiwals had been spent were used in the (construction of) the mosque…

Plenty of such evidences can be found across India, spanning a period of about 1200 years. Indeed, even as late as the 18th century, Tipu Sultan alone had destroyed a few thousand temples in just south India. The British East India Company official Lewis Rice in his Mysore Gazetteer mentions that Tipu had destroyed as many as 8000 temples, a fact corroborated by Colonel R.D. Palsokar in his study of Tipu.

Equally, there is a huge amount of literary evidence to support the fact of large scale temple destruction by medieval Muslim rulers. Ibn Ferista, who lived between 1570 and 1612 AD, says the following about Mahmud of Ghazni while talking about his conquest of Punjab:

On breaking a great temple situated there, the ornamented figure of a lion came out of it, which according to the belief of the Hindus was 4000 years old…The Brahmans said that as the god was angry with the idols Mahmud had broken, he did not come to their help…

All the references cited above are derived from primary sources: that is, the accounts written by court historians of these medieval Muslim rulers and the firmaans (royal orders) issued by the rulers themselves. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In this context, it is pertinent to recall the words of the scholar-historian S.R. Goel who has written a two-volume history of Hindu temple destruction entitled Hindu Temples: What Happened to them. At the end of the second volume, S.R. Goel says:

Starting with Al-Bilãdhurî who wrote in Arabic in the second half of the ninth century, and coming down to Syed Mahmudul Hasan who wrote in English in the fourth decade of the twentieth, we have cited from eighty histories spanning a period of more than twelve hundred years. Our citations mention sixty-one kings, sixty-three military commanders and fourteen sufis who destroyed Hindu temples in one hundred and fifty-four localities, big and small, spread from Khurasan in the West to Tripura in the East, and from Transoxiana in the North to Tamil Nadu in the South, over a period of eleven hundred years. In most cases the destruction of temples was followed by erection of mosques, madrasas and khãnqãhs, etc., on the temple sites and, frequently, with temple materials.

Indeed, this two-volume work is perhaps the most comprehensive work ever written on the subject. After such an exhaustive examination of primary sources, S.R. Goel comes up with the following (emphasis added):

Mahmûd of Ghazni robbed and burnt down 1,000 temples at Mathura, and 10,000 in and around Kanauj. One of his successors, Ibrãhîm, demolished 1,000 temples each in Hindustan (Ganga-Yamuna Doab) and Malwa. Muhammad Ghûrî destroyed another 1,000 at Varanasi. Qutbud-Dîn Aibak employed elephants for pulling down 1,000 temples in Delhi. Alî I Ãdil Shãh of Bijapur destroyed 200 to 300 temples in Karnataka. A sufi, Qãyim Shãh, destroyed 12 temples at Tiruchirapalli. Such exact or approximate counts, however, are available only in a few cases. 

The last sentence is revealing. The numbers that S.R. Goel gives in just six cases add up to 15212, which surpasses Richard Eaton’s claim by 15132 temples!

Verdict

It is clear that Eaton has indulged in one of the following:

1. He has deliberately suppressed the actual count of the number of Hindu temples destroyed by medieval Muslim rulers because he claims that he has gone through the evidence and inscriptions.

2. He is ignorant of medieval Muslim history of India.

It is hard to believe #2 given how Tehelka  mentions him as the “Wikipedia, the Google and, many would argue, the last word on medieval and Islamic history in India.” Indeed, there is no doubt that Eaton is a history scholar. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that Richard Eaton has deliberately distorted the number of Hindu temples destroyed by Muslim rulers. What’s also noteworthy is the fact that Eaton does not present a shred of evidence in the interview to back his 80-temples-destroyed claim! 

It would perhaps be forgivable if such historical distortion was indulged by a lay person but when done by a veteran scholar who is described as the last word, it is nothing short of an intellectual crime.

Therefore, IndiaFacts Fact Meter finds that Richard Eaton’s claim that “it’s a myth that Muslim Rulers Destroyed Thousands Of Temples” is not only False but that Richard Eaton is an Incorrigible Liar.

About the Author

- Sankrant Sanu is an entrepreneur, author and researcher based in Seattle and Gurgaon. His essays in the book "Invading the Sacred" contested Western academic writing on Hinduism. He is a graduate of IIT Kanpur and the University of Texas and holds six technology patents. His latest book is "The English Medium Myth." He blogs at sankrant.org .


Displaying 39 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. […] article, however, caught my eye- ‘Hindu temple destructions a myth: Richard Eaton’ by India Facts Research Centre. It is an ambitiously written critique of Richard Eaton, a teacher […]

  2. cool says:

    Aurangzeb issues orders for demolition of all Hindu Temples throughout the Mughal Emp. 9 April 1669 (Bikaner Museum)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDBQJ7oVIAELt5e.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDBQLVJUUAAjq0e.jpg

    Aurangzeb orders cart loads of Hindu idols brought from Temples to be cast under the steps of Jama Masjid 25May 1679.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDRCaINUUAAfSIX.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDRCYPwUIAAP9YI.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDRCYL8UsAAMDRB.jpg

    Demolition of the Kashi Vishwanath (Banaras) Aug 1669, as per ordered by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb on 9th April 1669.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCUFYnaVIAAYOIm.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCUFSk4UMAAOsF7.jpg

    Fatwa issued by Mugals to convert the Hindus.
    Rs 4 to a Hindu male/ Rs.2 to a female,7th April 1685.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBLhFXUUcAEA94U.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBLhFXUUcAEA94U.jpg

    Orders for the demolition of Jagannath Temple, Puri, passed by Aurangzeb, 1st June 1681.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBv8mBfVIAAR0SO.jpg

    Demolition of the KalkaJi Temple, Delhi. 3-12 Sep 1667. as per orderd by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFdNNV8UgAAJeJt.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFdNMFGUUAAFF35.jpg

    View of the Ganges River bank with Aurangzeb’s Alamgir Mosque built after demolition of Bindu Madhav Temple Varanasi.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEjHnmKUIAANLC7.jpg

    Gyanvapi mosque was built by Aurangzeb in 1669 CE, after destroying the original Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFdUgTeUkAIPJTY.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFdUgPQUMAAHS1U.jpg

    Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque in Qutub Complex was built by the parts taken by destruction of 27 Hindu & Jain temples.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKV51wMUsAAga4W.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKV5ur-UkAAH8gt.jpg

    Demolition of the ”Bindu Madhav” (Nand Madho) Temple on 13 Sep 1682, as per ordered by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEKwYZcVAAALXyq.jpg
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEKwZNrVAAAK5oF.jpg

    HINDU TEMPLES WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM Volume 1
    http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples1/

    HINDU TEMPLES WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM Volume 2
    http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/

    Partial List of Mosques in various states which were built after demolishing Hindu temples
    https://vhsindia.org/en/list-of-mosques-in-various-states-which-were-built-after-demolishing-hindu-temples/

  3. RK Sandhu says:

    Eaton is an idiot. What does he know about India. Coming there and staying for a few months or years does not make one an authority on history. It is the people there who would know best. Everyone knows that the muslims invaders destroyed many hindus temples and forced hindus to convert. Eaton is talking through his axx.

  4. Dalip Bhati says:

    Eaton is right Gazni or Ghori did not reach that far deep into India and as stated earlier Hindus were in constant conflict with raiders and they were not invaders but just RAIDERS even shivaji Maharaj looted Surat whenever money was required for major expeditions against the Mughals by the way Whole of India was never completely under foreign domination as claimed by various banias (shopkeepers)

    • MAnu says:

      In that case you should read the Khiilji’s expeditions to South.. or the muslim kings of deccan who destroyed Vijayanagara, and produced the Owasi’s as legacy to modern India.. Read something before exposing your casteist mindset.. So much for you though!

      • Dalip Bhati says:

        I am not being caste minded but trying to correct some misnomers in our history i have done some study as such please note when khilji raided south (had he invaded he would have stayed there) as after the raid and collecting the wealth he went back to Delhi leaving a vacuum further when was Vijayanagar destroyed please refer to http://www.bharatgaurav.co.in/2014/01/whole-india-not-dominated.html also
        Professor Herman Kulke’s observation in his book “A History of India” , records:

        Ala-ud-din was also quite realistic when he mentioned that his order would be obeyed only upto a distance of about 100 miles from Delhi; beyond that limit military intervention was required if he wanted to impose his will on the people.

      • Dalip Bhati says:

        My dear you are reading history professed by Nehru and Marxists who’s comments are based on false claims of Muslim and british historians who wrote to spread awe and terror for their Muslim masters please visit bharatgaurav.co.in and enlighten yourself and me with your comments (invitation) thanks in anticipation for the visit

  5. Dalip Bhati says:

    Yes the places of worship were destroyed but they were not Hindu temples but but Buddhist Stupas and Gomphas because Hindus fought for every inch of Land till the last whereas the Buddhist or Jainis due to their adherence to non violence were easy targets of Muslim raiders who destroyed their temples raped their women but this was not so as Hindus preferred to Johar and Saka the reason why you see muslin population in Afghanistan and around Bangladesh this suited the Buddhists too as they were more anti Hindu then Anti Invaders

    • Brijesh Maurya says:

      Before summering the facts let us have look at brahmin’s dharma attitude towards buddhism, Just after fall of mauryan Empire and before Islam arrival. When islam arrived then buddhism was on verge of End.. Why ? ? So it is not muslims who destroyed buddhism but it is brahmins culture and sociology who destroyed society and india as well..

      Almost all great kingdom belongs to non-brahmanical order.

      • Dalip Bhati says:

        Don’t take it as personal challenge but If Muryan one could be made to think on right lines the battle is won– you are talking of two incidents which are at least 1000 or even 2200 years apart — which Mauryan empire you talking about (Chandra Gupta Maurya) one whose mentor was Chanakya in 1541 BC or one created by British Pastor and evangelist William Jones ChandraGupta I of 300 BC or ChandraGupta II around 375 AD (the later two created by Jones so as coincide with so called Alexander of Macedonia’s invasion)

        Dear sir and son there were two Chandra Gupta First of Maurya dynasty and Second of Gupta dynasty — this William Jones negated = denied existence 1541 BC Chandragupta and pulled him down to 300 BC when ruled Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty he further distorted the history by shifting the Gupta to 375 AD and called it as the golden period and dubbed the period between 1500 BC to 327 BC as DARK PERIOD OF INDIAN HISTORY and shifted and compressed mingled historical events to confuse us Indians (may they be Hindus or Buddhists) all this to ACCOMODATE MAX MULLERS THEORY OF ARYAN INVASION IN OR AROUND 1500 BC — massacre of DRAVIDIANS etc.etc thus there came into existence Two Buddhas (one of 1842 BC and other of 447 BC), Two Shankracharyas (First Adi Shankaracharya of 509 BC and other Abhinav Shankaracharya of 788 AD) and finally two Chandragupta’s ( First of Maurya Dynasty in 1541 BC and other of Gupta dynasty around 300 BC) and thus:

        Maurya dynasty was placed from 1541 BC to 300 BC.

        Nanda dynasty prior to 1541 BC placed in the range: 400 BC – 300 BC.

        Gautam Buddha, Mahavir Jain,; Ajatashatru placed in 500 BC.

        Adi Shankara of 509 BC placed 1000 years after Gautam Buddha in 800 AD.

        Smashed our Vikram Samvat of 57 BC as a fiction

        Shalivahan dynasty placed in 40 BC.

        Gupta dynasty of 321 BC placed around 400 AD.

        As regards Brahmanical and non Brahminical advantages and draw backs Bhagwan Buddh has been given due REGARD IN DASAVATAR CHRONOLOGY but he is the one of 1814 BC

        here it is necessary to distinguish between two Buddhas it is Second Shakya Simha or Sidarth / Gautama Buddha’s his mother was Mayadevi and was born in the city of Kapilvastu around 477 BC but attained enlightenment in Kikata now known as Bodh Gaya the present sect of Buddhism styled after ,

        It be of some interest to you that our Ashoka the Great was a Hindu first then converted to Buddhism and later died as a Jain performing Santara those day i suppose one jumped from one sect or belief for better after life

        more on hearing from you

        • Brijesh Maurya says:

          My first comment has been digested by your version of history without any proper reference so.. Just leave the matter. You can not give answer, simply you dont have.

          First thing ashoka was not a hindu (If you have any prof or reference let me know. Remember one thing i dont believe in PURANAS, I wanna Pramana (Proof). Ashoka was from shramana culture and formally embarrassed buddhism. Remember his father who embarrassed Jainism and again chandragupt was not hindu.. Even it almost impossible to figure it out the meaning and essence of word Hindu.

          • Dalip Bhati says:

            Firstly I am Not quoting from Puranas dear where there is smoke (truth) there is fire (anger) [based on buddhist beliefs] and where there is fire there is smoke I am quoting from Buddhist and Jain Beliefs and what what I have sighted in the long passage earlier Is from William Jones (British evangelist) version of history that we study today in schools this chap EVEN denies existence of Ashoka as great as he (Jones) stops at massacre in Kalinga and does not elevate him to pedestal of greatness it is said in buddhist philosophy Pratikshya (Truth/that which is visible) ko kya Pramana in addition the philosophy also mentions in its tenets something known as UPAYA (effort) [that is what you must do to understand] — I cannot figure out to which sect of buddhism you belong to as as matter of fact classical form of Buddhism (As Buddha taught — not followed any more) or as advocated by Dr.Ambedkar without any philosophical basis as an affront to present day hinduism was never in vogue. It was King Kanishka who facilitated and promoted Buddhism in its new form Vajrayana from him it spread to Tibet and Mongolia and other regions adopted it in modified versions as Theravada and Mahayana the world over — by the way you are grossly misinformed caste system is not a creation of indians (Hindus) it is a by product of foreign aggressors (Raiders and traders) caste and Jati are foreign words attributed to indians (Hindus- to defame them) but of Portuguese and Arab origin

          • Brijesh Maurya says:

            Rather that giving references you are guessing about my belifs ! It seems you are not discussing history but your history and beliefs.

            From vedas to puranas, From ramayanas to smritis all are full of racist comments,ideas and you are asking caste came here by some alien from marsh ? Your beloved Tulasidas abuses w omens and low status people why dont you abuse his creation Rama charita manasa?

            You are cunning like fox.

          • Dalip Bhati says:

            What do you imply by racist comments the right word is Casteist are you from out side of India those traders or raiders who are no longer traceable here in this subcontinent

          • Brijesh Maurya says:

            Again u r using same cacist language.. with new dictionary of traders and raiders

          • Dalip Bhati says:

            Maurya ji in which dictionary the words raiders or traders is defined as racist or casteist I AM AN INDIAN STAUNCHER THEN YOU

          • Brijesh Maurya says:

            Dear Mr. Dalip, words can not be racial… that is impossible. It is we who give them racial meaning and temperament. Look at tone of your comment…. For you this very raiders and traders both are racial.

          • Dalip Bhati says:

            You have denounced every form of addressing a Britisher as Racial — as regards the comment you have cited — is it not a fact what is happening and happened –truth is bitter –the main discussion was destruction of Hindu temples and i wrote it was the Stupas which muslims destroyed BECAUSE the very basis of non violence deterred Buddhists from taking up arms against the invaders = raiders — what I have stated is a logical outcome of observations as they exist today — I specially picked up to comment on you because of your Maurya name you are under wrong impression Ashok was a Mauryan = Buddhist = We Hindus do not hate any religion a very potent example is of giving asylum then and even now supporting Dalai Lama resulting in our discord with China == even today we observe Buddha Purnima == again he was not a Maurya and a Buddhist == it is you only who claim because you have read the Evangelist == british version of Indian history = just think how Chanakya a brahmin could have supported a Buddhist disciple == again it might hurt you but Chandra Gupta Maurya was in 1541 BC and Ashok in around 300 BC it is the william jones who brought him down to 300 BC and declared these 1200 as Dark period of Indian history == WE INDIANS = want SALVATION == NIRVANA == MOKSH and would go any length to achieve it adopt any belief or religion

          • Dalip Bhati says:

            Maurya ji long time no see In hinduism there are no low or high status people Writer of Mahabharata was Ved Vyasa born of fisher women Satya vati , Ramayana was written by Valmiki a forest hunter, Jatayakana Jabala from mother Jabala was a prostitute,Raja Harish Chandra performed duties of Chandala all of whom you tend to call low caste people / as such we Hindus had no problems about caste it is the Buddhists who classified non followers as Low caste / Hindus were non vegetarians and war like people whereas Buddhists and Jains were proponents of nonviolence , vegetarianism and mang kar khane wale they were leeches of the society comprising of Hindus — there are hindu scriptures containing racist comments it is a figment of your imagination /Hinduism gave all tirthankaras to Jains and and Hindu Kshatriya gave you Mahatma Buddh / Hindus never called Chandragupta of low cast but the Buddhist dubbed him a low caste after Ashoka realising his folly converted to Jainism

          • Brijesh Maurya says:

            As you given so many examples, I can say that racial theory of hindu socity is biggest fraud by brahmins based on reality. In real there is no race but diversities, specialties has been projected as differences and hence racism.

            Your whole vedas, smrities, ramayana, mahabharata, puranas are full of racial commntory and you are raising finger on buddhism… Dirty mind

          • Vzdm says:

            Lord Rama killed Shambhukta near Ramtek, for performing penance ,simply because he was a Shudra. Karna was cursed by Dronacharya for learning archery because he pretended to be a Brahmin. Innumerable examples of casteism in Hinduism, casteism is its basic tenet.

          • Brijesh Maurya says:

            Please dont post scrab. I am not intrested in junk dealing.

      • Dalip Bhati says:

        Maurya Ji Muslims ke against bolne ki thumhari himmat nahin hai (dont have guts to speak against the muslims) tumhari SUNNET kar dengi — Hinduism ke petticoat ke niche chupe raho and defame it and why not Buddha is the ninth incarnation of Lord Vishnu otherwise what is your authenticity

      • Dalip Bhati says:

        Parallel Brahminical order their existed the Sharmana (buddhists) people why are you ignoring them and they were also not Dudh ke dhule hue – in those yester years people had courage of conviction at least they accepted the truth — go and read about on Madan Mishra and Shankracharya

      • S Naidu says:

        Brijesh Mishra
        another leftist lie that Hindus destroyed Buddhists places of worship in INdia or terrorized Buddhists.
        It’s true that Buddhism was on the wane in India by the time muslims came, but there are no evidences of violence agaisnt Buddhists or jains. The fact is that Buddhism did not succeed as well in India because the roots of Sanatan Dharma are pretty strong, unlike other places where Buddhism spread, which were totally populated by unorganized pagans who were easy to change and influence.

        In fact, there are evidences that Hindus and Buddhists lived peacefully, even when Budhhism was on the wane. When Heun TSang visited India, in the times of Harsha Vardhan, he notes that although Budhhism is on the wane in India, Hindus and Buddhists live peacefully and that the king Harsha Vardhan himself was a Buddhist, and had several programmes to promote Buddhism. There was absolutely no conflicts between Hindus and Buddhists. Nor do any Hindu or Buddhists records show any such conflict. They are simply the brain child of leftist propaganda.

        And, true to the history, there are no such cases of conflict between Hindus and Buddhists till this day. Indeed Hindu India has stood up against China against the persecution of Dalai Lama. In Thailand, the minority HIndus face no hostility from the majority Budhhists.

        But, Islam which preaches conflicts, killiing and conversions of non muslims have a history of such conflicts and t hey are doing that till this day.

    • Nadeem Divekar says:

      peace ,mercy and blessing with u
      would like to send Healing kidney Failure naturally and others so give ur mail id , my self nadeem Divekar promoting nature cure science , My mail id is [email protected]

  6. Ali says:

    The truth is always bitter for a sanghi to believe in. More and more historians are blowing away their false trumpet of temple destruction and other myths which they have propogated to polarize the society and promote their divisive agenda.

    • MAnu says:

      Read the chronicles of Muslim invaders destroying 100s of “Kafir” temples in Mathura all recorded for by themselves.. Ignorance is bliss!

      • Dalip Bhati says:

        That is what I am saying they mention Kafirs but not Hindus in those days they could not differentiate between Hindu, Buddhist and a Jain as such you will find few Buddhist Viharas across india in existence whereas as some Jain Temples can be found as Jain’s came under the garb of Hinduism (A mention of Bhamashah a Jain is appropriate here – person who helped Rana Pratap with money against Akbar) but Buddhist who opposed Hindus since early times as also monotheists like Muslims faced the Wrath of the raiders the reason why you find Muslims most in East and West (Bihar and Afghanistan) and are now hiding as pseudo secularists

    • Dalip Bhati says:

      Ali sahib hindu aur muslin ek he thali ke chatte batte hain jo musalman nahin khata karta hai woh hindu khata karta hai as such are COMPLIMENTARY to each other in this social setup [[ ek kamzor bimar cows khata hai toh dusra bhista khane wale soowar swines khata hai — ek jhatka karta hai toh dusra halal — wah, wah what coordination — and most astonishing point is Muslims know more about finer points of Ramayana and Mahabharata and Hindus about Koran and hadiths ITS IS A PERFECT YIN YANG SOCIETY ( koi bhi bahar se nahi aaya na Aryans na muslims yahin hi paida hue aur yahin hi mar jayenge — aapko mulla darata, dhamakta ya phlislata hai to hum ko Panda — agar Hindu kam ho gaye toh pando ki income kam ho jayegi aur musalman kam ho gaye toh mullo ki ]] and for that matter Sangh is not conscience keeper of Hindus and I don’t think muslims have an organisation at that scale and if by chance a parallel institution comes into existence Apas mein lar maroge (will start fighting amongst your selves) but one thing is hilarious — worth laughing — Our few generation old family Carcun (administrator /accountant) is a muslim chap, in 70’s he was Khilji’s (Slave dynasty),his progeny became construction contractors an lo they suddenly changed to Pathans (Suri dynasty) and six months back one of them went for Hajj and when he returned I asked him Chacha how was the journey and stay he said hamare Arabia mein Hindustan aur China ka hi saman hi milta hai — and if that was not enough a fortnight later while going in my Mahindra Scorpion i spotted Ghisa the village cobbler it is case of Parsu – Parasa – Parasram hey data tere teen nam

  7. S. Suchindranath Aiyer says:

    Is Eaton related to Jawaharlal Nehru. Is he rediscovering India in order to obtain a Bharatha Ratna?

  8. N.S. Rajaram says:

    Eaton’s earlier work SUFIS OF BIJAPUR was more truthful and showed the Sufis in true color. But it is more profitable to go into negation.

  9. Srinivas says:

    In my earlier comment, I meant to refer to Meenakshi Jain (the historian from Delhi University) and not Sandhya Jain.

  10. Srinivas says:

    You says “Eaton does not present a shred of evidence in the interview..”. He may not provided evidence in the interview, but provided enough evidence in his paper and his book on this subject. There is no evidence that you read that book (or his papers) before coming to this conclusion. What credibility does your judgment have? History scholars like Sandya Jain and Koenraad Elst have written on the subject of Eaton with authority. You don’t provide any references to their work either. When trying to pass judgments on works of scholars, the minimum that is expected is some semblance of scholarship.

    • Ankush says:

      The so-called 80 come from an essay Richard had written for Frontline some years back. You can still download it from their website. Interestingly, in that essay, Eaton had spoken of 80 instances and not 80 temples. Those instances were like – destruction of temples at Dwarka, destruction of temples at Ajmer etc. One of his quoted instances covered a entire kingdom. Hence, in his own essay, he had not given the precise number of temples destroyed but clearly, those numbers ran into many hundreds, if now thousands.

      If Eaton has come down to 80 temples from 80 instances, then he himself is negating his own research

  11. Dr. Gautam Sen says:

    Eaton did write a truthful first book about the impact of Islam on Hindus, but soon found his academic career would be doomed and quickly changed his tune. He became a camp follower of the vile Romila, the Ghaznavid nautch historian who has written a whole tome seeking to exonerate Mahmud, the Hindu killer, equivalent to Hitler for Hindus. And these lying ’eminent historians’, whom Arun Shourie exposed, now portray Aurangzeb as India’s greatest temple builder, Hindu kings included!

  12. Bhoopalan says:

    In my previous comment, in the last paragraph, there is a typo error. The corrected phrase is:

    In our own land, we must find out the truth for ourselves…

  13. Bhoopalan says:

    How did Eaton acquire the academic authority on Indian temples in medieval times… relying on “vested interest intellectuals” like him is worse than how the two cats relied on the monkey to give them justice over a piece of cheese.

    Recently I read about two massacres by British forces that were more horrendous than the one at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919. One was at Palchitaria in 1922 in Gujarat and another at Mangad in 1913 in Gujarat/Rajasthan.

    British and western historians will not even care about them… now… they would have positively suppressed all such news in the past… there would have been more such carnages and genocides.

    http://www.deeshaa.org/2013/12/02/profiting-from-conflict-the-monkey-and-the-cats/

    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/palchitaria-the-carnage-that-took-place-in-gujarat-three-years-after-jallianwala-massacre/1/274749.html

    http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/jallianwala-bagh-in-gujarat-brutal-tribal-massacre-gujarat-rajasthan-border/1/215547.html

    There is a long history and huge current inventory of such ‘motivated’ foreigners and their supporter Indian sepoys. So, why will motivated and vested folks like Eaton give us the truth? In your land, we must find out the truth ourselves… thanks to Bhagavaan for small mercies that Eaton’s prodigious research and insights did not turn up ‘exact’ numbers such as 88.8 temples destroyed in 888 years in 888,888 sq. miles of territory!

Leave a comment