The messenger here is the person who posted the opening post.
Regarding Arun Shourie, of course, he is also shooting the messenger, Mr. Jha.
Nobody has a problem with Hindu religion. It is the right wingers who see a Marxist in any historical account (in this case, Pag Sam Jon Zang) that does not agree with their version of history.
I don't think history has multiple versions. There is just one - the true version.
It is a given that an allegorical text may be interpreted in many ways (as Wendy does) based on the approach of the interpreter.
But there is no such riddle here. Jha is not interpreting or translating something, neither is Yadava.
They are dropping facts and selectively quote mining a text (no, an English sumary of its passage) 500 years late than the event in question. That, when there are plenty of contemporary accounts clearly explaining the events already.
As if these weren't enough for historiographical blunders, Jha doesn't say it is his belief/opinion or theory.
He is a historian (not a novelist) and he presents this distorted picture like it were history put down as is. That is what is incriminating (specially when done from the podium of Indian History Congress' presidential address) .
Coming to the late text, Pag Sam Jon Zang is not the creation of a Marxist and problem here is not with the text. Period.
Problem really is with the kind of games played on top of it. This was an abuse of the text instead.
Even a word to word rendering of that text (by any wing left/ring/center) would be acceptable. Sadly that wouldn't help Jha prove what he wants to prove and hence the jugglary.
Now about the passage in question. It says the beggars set fire (to entire compound?) by using their fire siddhis and the scriptures in Nalanda gushed out streams of water to extinguish that fire. If Jha buys that account, then I'd like to free Puranic sources from all the suspicions laid on them till date by the same eminent historians.
Differences exist in opinions / view points / interpretations - not in truth. It has only one version.
Regards,
Virendra