[Buddha-l] Nalanda's library destruction

[G. McLoughlin]

I returned to the computer to realize I had written something
stupid.  When I wrote that Nalanda and
other Buddhist institutions were not destroyed by Muslims I wrote stupidly
because I know better. Other than my innate dullness I can only blame extreme exhaustion. I apologize.

What I should have said is that my understanding of the
'"standard model" that is more or less accepted by most historians of
the conquests (as well as historians of South Asia) is that the decline of
Buddhism in India had reasons far more complex than just Muslim invaders, who admittedly landed
some heavy blows.  I do believe that the
"it was just the Muslim invaders that killed Buddhism" or "death
by Islamic holy war conducted by fanatics” theory advocated by some is indeed
regarded by most historians as a myth and not supported by the record.

Dr. Lusthaus is absolutely correct. It is my understanding
that most  historians generally accept the overwhelming evidence that Nalanda was sacked by the Huns under
Mihirakula during the reign of Skandagupta (455-467 CE) and then attacked by
the Gaudas in the early 7th century CE. It recovered from both attacks. Nalanda limped on., but never fully recovered from the final blow which came when it was
attacked in a raid led by the Turk (or better, Turkic Afghanic ) Bakhtiyar Khilji in
1193.  He was leading a motley band of
Afghans, new Indian converts, and the usual mixed international solider crowd
of the time. They are often described as "nominal Muslims" because
they consistently acted, from Bakhtiyar Khilji on down, as if their only
motivations were plunder and power and were not seen as having particularly religious motivations by historians. Calling them
"nominal Muslims" is not a defense or criticism of Islam by such historians, but an
attempt to understand their actions. This is also why it is important to
understand the motivation of the rulers during the conquests as well. Otherwise
the history of the period is incomprehensible.

As Alexander Berzin wrote:
The Ghurid destruction
of Buddhist monasteries, then, was focused on those that lay on their direct
line of advance and which were fortified in the manner of defensive forts.
Furthermore, the Ghurids placed their military commanders as governors of the
areas they conquered and, giving them great autonomy, employed the Abbasid
system of iqta’ for remuneration. In other words, the Ghurid sultan granted
these military governors whatever revenues they could collect in lieu of
financial support from the central state. Thus, it would have been against the
personal interests of these military chiefs to have destroyed everything that
would come under their providence. They followed the Umayyad, Abbasid, and
Ghaznavid patterns of conquest, namely looting and inflicting heavy damage on
major religious edifices in the initial raids of their takeover and then, once
in power, granting protected subject status to their non-Muslim subjects and
collecting a poll tax from them. ....Despite the possibility of accepting
protected subject status, many Buddhist monks fled Bihar and parts of northern
Bengal, seeking asylum in monastic universities and centers in modern-day
Orissa, southern Bangladesh, Arakan on the western coast of Burma, southern
Burma, and northern Thailand… They damaged only the Hindu and Jain temples
found in the major cities for laypeople. The Buddhists, on the other hand, had
large, imposing monastic universities, surrounded by high walls and fortified
by the local kings. Their razing clearly had military significance...
The fact that only the
Buddhist institutions suffered severe destruction, and mostly only those on the
major paths of the troops’ advance, is further evidence that although the
Ghurids called their campaign a holy war, its actual aim was not converting
infidels to Islam. Had it been, they would have focused on the religious
communities of the Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists alike, regardless of their size
or location.  (http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/unpublished_manuscripts/historical_interaction/pt3/history_cultures_20.html)

Again, it is my understanding that the above is generally accepted.
It does not seem very revisionist to me and clearly is not an attempt to whitewash
anybody’s history. 

For the record: I do not understand why one poster incorrectly
claimed I had referred to convenient Muslim sources (as if that were a bad
thing). If I had looked I would have actually thought
about what I was writing as distinct from what I was thinking. I am not a part
of any formal or informal conspiratorial group to advance any political or religious agenda, hidden or overt.  I am not a Muslim or an apologist for Islam or
any religion (again, not that any of that would necessarily be a bad thing).  I have no strong views on Kashmir or fluoride,
about either of which I know little.