General History Thread

[Kumaoni]

Question: When the Marathas had overrun and taken back most of the subcontinent, why did they not go about rebuilding the stolen temples such as Ayodhya and Gyanvaapi, along with 40,000 others? I know of only a dozen or so cases where they rebuilt stolen temples, especially in the South. This seems like a huge oversight on their end when they had all the power to do it.

Vikram Sampath explaining the issue to Panauti

After Baji Raos passing they became a regionalist empire instead of a pan hindu empire. And even then, only under Ch. Shivaji and shambhaji did they have a sort of pan hindu vision. Baji Rao Peshwa had this as well but it wasn’t as strong.

 

[Azaad]

more buddhist monasteries than hindu ones in the region.

Is Hinduism a monastic faith ? How then can we ascertain the existence popularity & population of a faith based solely on the presence of a rival faith's monasteries ?

Besides do we know of which specific region in Afghanistan is Xuan Tsang referring to when he discusses the preponderance of viharas ? The same Xuan Tsang also laments the near extinction of Buddhism in Bihar especially in Kapilavastu & surrounding regions barely a century after the end of Gupta rule where the latter kings embraced Buddhism.

Yes, there isnt much evidence of Buddhism being present south of Sialkot ( Sagala) in ancient times and Sindh being hindu is most likely, as even the arabs note that the Sindhis had 'bamman shahs', meaning brahmin kings at the eve of their conquest.
The period of Sindh between Gupta rule of the region ( ends around 470s CE) to its conquest by arabs ( roughly 750s CE) doesnt see any buddhist iconography coinage, which most likely means the region at this point wasn't buddhist.

Au contraire Buddhists especially Buddhist merchants & the laity played the role of fifth columnists sabotaging Dahirs war efforts collaborating with the Arabs . I refer you to Andre Wink's seminal work Al Hind : The making of the Indo Islamic World in three volumes where he's extensively quoted from extant texts to establish this point.

André Wink - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Besides when did the Guptas rule Sind ?

In the period prior, Sindh went from Sassanid control ( 250s CE-350s CE) and shows fire altars in the form of zoroastrianism iconography and the style of Persian shah's potrait-coinage, indicating that the region may have had zoroastrian influences at this point.

Never heard of it . Perhaps you could reference this bit of information.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Is Hinduism a monastic faith ? How then can we ascertain the existence popularity & population of a faith based solely on the presence of a rival faith's monasteries ?

Because Xuanzong, for most places, gives 'numbers' of buddhist monks and brahmin pujaris. It'd stand to reason that a region with more brahmin pujaris would likely mean the region is hindu majority and vice versa. He also does the same for number of buddhist viharas and 'fire temples'.

Besides do we know of which specific region in Afghanistan is Xuan Tsang referring to when he discusses the preponderance of viharas ? The same Xuan Tsang also laments the near extinction of Buddhism in Bihar especially in Kapilavastu & surrounding regions barely a century after the end of Gupta rule where the latter kings embraced Buddhism.

Most of the places the chinese record are hard to correlate, because they change it to their chinese pronounciations and then write it in approximations of their symbolic script. For eg, i know Gandhara was written as 'qiantuwowei' and earlier faxian recorded the origin of gupta empire from a place called Milikiasikiapono, which could either be 'mrighashikhavana' or ' mrigasthapana', which would place their start either in UP or Bengal.
In the case of Xuanzong, since he chronicles his journey in chronological fashion, it has been established with fair bit of confidence what each of the places mentioned are.

Also, it'd probably make sense for Xuanzong to think Buddhism had declined in Magadh, given that Pataliputra was destroyed and Magadh came under the rule of the staunch shaivite bengali king Shashanka, after he killed off the Maukhari kings, who were also hindu. Its possible that he was talking about the decline of buddhism in magadh in relation to the destruction of pataliputra and various other centres of buddhism there.

Au contraire Buddhists especially Buddhist merchants & the laity played the role of fifth columnists sabotaging Dahirs war efforts collaborating with the Arabs . I refer you to Andre Wink's seminal work Al Hind : The making of the Indo Islamic World in three volumes where he's extensively quoted from extant texts to establish this point.

Yes, but that doesnt change my opinion that Sindh was probably Hindu majority - 5th column is most of the time a significant minority population and that makes the probability such imo.

Besides when did the Guptas rule Sind ?
..
Never heard of it . Perhaps you could reference this bit of information.

From the period of Chandragupta Vikramaditya to most likely the end of Skandagupta's period, as Western Kshatrapas were known to've ruled from Sindh to Gujrat.

Look up Sassanian Hindh, which was one of the provinces of Sassanian empire.
The confusion comes from what actually was sindh in those times- to the Sassanians, the right bank of Indus was Sindh, while to Indians, the left bank of Indus was Sindh.
This is why the majority of Sassanian coins are found in Larkana-Jacobabad-Sibi region and the Arabs, after defeat by the Gurjar-Pratiharas ( Nagabhatta IIRC) concluded that they re-established posts in Sindh on the right bank of Indus, while the Gurjar inscriptions make it very clear that they drove off the Tajikas & Mlechchas to the other side of Sindh.

The indus being the boundary of the 'scythian kingdom' is mentioned in the Periplus of the erythrian sea ( arabian sea) in Roman sources as well as Shaka kingdom being on the other side of Indus is mentioned in Sassanian records.
Couple that with the rise of the first independent dynasty of sindh- the Rai dynasty- around 470s CE, matches well with the decline of the Gupta empire, where after the death of Skandagupta, the Gupta empire lost its western portions, all the way from Hunza & Gandhara to basically what is India-Pakistan border at Punjab and territories west of the Aravalli range.

Here is a reference to Sassanian hindh ( though the map provided is wrong) :

Hind (Sasanian province) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Azaad]

Because Xuanzong, for most places, gives 'numbers' of buddhist monks and brahmin pujaris. It'd stand to reason that a region with more brahmin pujaris would likely mean the region is hindu majority and vice versa. He also does the same for number of buddhist viharas and 'fire temples'.



Most of the places the chinese record are hard to correlate, because they change it to their chinese pronounciations and then write it in approximations of their symbolic script. For eg, i know Gandhara was written as 'qiantuwowei' and earlier faxian recorded the origin of gupta empire from a place called Milikiasikiapono, which could either be 'mrighashikhavana' or ' mrigasthapana', which would place their start either in UP or Bengal.
In the case of Xuanzong, since he chronicles his journey in chronological fashion, it has been established with fair bit of confidence what each of the places mentioned are.

Also, it'd probably make sense for Xuanzong to think Buddhism had declined in Magadh, given that Pataliputra was destroyed and Magadh came under the rule of the staunch shaivite bengali king Shashanka, after he killed off the Maukhari kings, who were also hindu. Its possible that he was talking about the decline of buddhism in magadh in relation to the destruction of pataliputra and various other centres of buddhism there.




Yes, but that doesnt change my opinion that Sindh was probably Hindu majority - 5th column is most of the time a significant minority population and that makes the probability such imo.



From the period of Chandragupta Vikramaditya to most likely the end of Skandagupta's period, as Western Kshatrapas were known to've ruled from Sindh to Gujrat.

Look up Sassanian Hindh, which was one of the provinces of Sassanian empire.
The confusion comes from what actually was sindh in those times- to the Sassanians, the right bank of Indus was Sindh, while to Indians, the left bank of Indus was Sindh.
This is why the majority of Sassanian coins are found in Larkana-Jacobabad-Sibi region and the Arabs, after defeat by the Gurjar-Pratiharas ( Nagabhatta IIRC) concluded that they re-established posts in Sindh on the right bank of Indus, while the Gurjar inscriptions make it very clear that they drove off the Tajikas & Mlechchas to the other side of Sindh.

The indus being the boundary of the 'scythian kingdom' is mentioned in the Periplus of the erythrian sea ( arabian sea) in Roman sources as well as Shaka kingdom being on the other side of Indus is mentioned in Sassanian records.
Couple that with the rise of the first independent dynasty of sindh- the Rai dynasty- around 470s CE, matches well with the decline of the Gupta empire, where after the death of Skandagupta, the Gupta empire lost its western portions, all the way from Hunza & Gandhara to basically what is India-Pakistan border at Punjab and territories west of the Aravalli range.

Here is a reference to Sassanian hindh ( though the map provided is wrong) :

Hind (Sasanian province) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm afraid none of what you're proposed above is convincing. They're based partly on facts mostly on conjecture beginning with Xuan Tsang's account of the preponderance of Buddhism in Afghanistan vis a vis Hinduism prevalent there.

For Hinduism to make a resurgence during the Shahi rule means it either died out or was barely surviving there in which case the revival ought to be much more problematic because it'd be contested. We don't see any accounts of it . If acceptance was peaceful which it can be taken to be if one accepts your version , it follows that it was always practised there by a substantial section of the population.

I'm veering around to the concept that the laity there following some sort of composite religion with orthodoxy in both religions being a minority. Since it's easier to account for Buddhist bhikkus given their monastic lifestyles vs Brahmins who were mostly householders & part of the general population , the enumeration of the former can easily mislead the observer in to thinking Buddhism was in the ascendant there vis a vis Hinduism.

Moreover Xuan Tsang has also remarked on the destruction of the giant stupa of Purushapur by the Huns apart from highlighting the pitiable conditions of the monasteries in that part of India which were mostly abandoned. Let's not forget that the nearly 2 centuries in between Fa Hien's visit & that of Xuan Tsang was where various types of Huns dominated that part of India & they singled out Buddhism especially their monasteries & the monks for special treatment which leads one to the only conclusion one can logically draw i.e Buddhism survived it's tryst with Hunnic rule but only barely.

The Brahmin Chach dynasty to which Dahir belonged to was Hindu & overthrew the Buddhist Rai dynasty which was in place for nearly 1.5 centuries ending in the early 7th century. Besides the Sammatiya sect of Buddhism purported to be active from the 4th century onwards counted Sind as its stronghold. Add these two phenomena togather & tell me why wasn't Buddhism in Sindh dominant. It's clear that they shared an uneasy relationship with Dahir or probably with the entire Chach dynasty.

Wink has cited multiple documents which clearly attest to forts of the Chach dynasty in Sind under the control of Buddhist officials being pressurised by the Buddhist merchants within to come to terms with their Arab besiegers who also sought freedom of religion as guarantees apart from concessions in trade which were granted. While not all Buddhist officials & laity sided with the Arabs a significant section of them did. The Hindus still survive there whereas the Buddhists vanished in a few centuries.

Western Ksatrapas ruled what's now eastern MP & Gujarat proper. There's little evidence of them ruling Kutch what to speak of Sind which is what Guptas under Chandragupta Ii & later Kumaragupta conquered . We've inscriptions or at any rate texts ascribing Gupta rule from the Indus banks to the mouth of the Indus during Chandragupta's rule in which case how do we account for the Kushano Sassanids who ruled those very parts in the same time period & the Kidarite Huns who entered Gandhara around the same time.

Finally the issue of Sassanid rule in Sind per se is tenous . There was the Kushano Sassanid dynasty in place & the fact that Shapur appointed his son Narseh as King of Sakastan which purportedly included Sind. Numismatic evidence thrown up from the area is both confusing & inconclusive clearly establishing that while there may have been periods of direct Sassanid rule there we also have to factor in the later Kushano Sassanid dynasty. It's quite possible the latter served as Ksatrapas or junior kings to the Sassanids but the internal power dynamic remains inconclusive. In any case the latter was displaced by the Kidarite & was earlier defeated by the Sassanids.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

I'm afraid none of what you're proposed above is convincing. They're based partly on facts mostly on conjecture beginning with Xuan Tsang's account of the preponderance of Buddhism in Afghanistan vis a vis Hinduism prevalent there.

For Hinduism to make a resurgence during the Shahi rule means it either died out or was barely surviving there in which case the revival ought to be much more problematic because it'd be contested. We don't see any accounts of it . If acceptance was peaceful which it can be taken to be if one accepts your version , it follows that it was always practised there by a substantial section of the population.

I'm veering around to the concept that the laity there following some sort of composite religion with orthodoxy in both religions being a minority. Since it's easier to account for Buddhist bhikkus given their monastic lifestyles vs Brahmins who were mostly householders & part of the general population , the enumeration of the former can easily mislead the observer in to thinking Buddhism was in the ascendant there vis a vis Hinduism.

Moreover Xuan Tsang has also remarked on the destruction of the giant stupa of Purushapur by the Huns apart from highlighting the pitiable conditions of the monasteries in that part of India which were mostly abandoned. Let's not forget that the nearly 2 centuries in between Fa Hien's visit & that of Xuan Tsang was where various types of Huns dominated that part of India & they singled out Buddhism especially their monasteries & the monks for special treatment which leads one to the only conclusion one can logically draw i.e Buddhism survived it's tryst with Hunnic rule but only barely.

The Brahmin Chach dynasty to which Dahir belonged to was Hindu & overthrew the Buddhist Rai dynasty which was in place for nearly 1.5 centuries ending in the early 7th century. Besides the Sammatiya sect of Buddhism purported to be active from the 4th century onwards counted Sind as its stronghold. Add these two phenomena togather & tell me why wasn't Buddhism in Sindh dominant. It's clear that they shared an uneasy relationship with Dahir or probably with the entire Chach dynasty.

Wink has cited multiple documents which clearly attest to forts of the Chach dynasty in Sind under the control of Buddhist officials being pressurised by the Buddhist merchants within to come to terms with their Arab besiegers who also sought freedom of religion as guarantees apart from concessions in trade which were granted. While not all Buddhist officials & laity sided with the Arabs a significant section of them did. The Hindus still survive there whereas the Buddhists vanished in a few centuries.

Western Ksatrapas ruled what's now eastern MP & Gujarat proper. There's little evidence of them ruling Kutch what to speak of Sind which is what Guptas under Chandragupta Ii & later Kumaragupta conquered . We've inscriptions or at any rate texts ascribing Gupta rule from the Indus banks to the mouth of the Indus during Chandragupta's rule in which case how do we account for the Kushano Sassanids who ruled those very parts in the same time period & the Kidarite Huns who entered Gandhara around the same time.

Finally the issue of Sassanid rule in Sind per se is tenous . There was the Kushano Sassanid dynasty in place & the fact that Shapur appointed his son Narseh as King of Sakastan which purportedly included Sind. Numismatic evidence thrown up from the area is both confusing & inconclusive clearly establishing that while there may have been periods of direct Sassanid rule there we also have to factor in the later Kushano Sassanid dynasty. It's quite possible the latter served as Ksatrapas or junior kings to the Sassanids but the internal power dynamic remains inconclusive. In any case the latter was displaced by the Kidarite & was earlier defeated by the Sassanids.

Kushano-sassanids ruled mostly in Kabul and bactria region. Kidarite huns would most likely be vassals of the guptas at this period.
Also, i do not understand your point re: buddhists in Sindh and Gandhara.
For hinduism to become resurgent in Gandhara simply means that hinduism became the majority - which is easy to accept under the hindushahis. I do not think hinduism was completely gone from gandhara even at the peak of their buddhist period. 2 centuries of hindu rule there, along with as you said,xuanzong's records would most likely mean that post gupta period the region of gandhara was hindu dominant.

 

[Azaad]

Kushano-sassanids ruled mostly in Kabul and bactria region. Kidarite huns would most likely be vassals of the guptas at this period.
Also, i do not understand your point re: buddhists in Sindh and Gandhara.
For hinduism to become resurgent in Gandhara simply means that hinduism became the majority - which is easy to accept under the hindushahis. I do not think hinduism was completely gone from gandhara even at the peak of their buddhist period. 2 centuries of hindu rule there, along with as you said,xuanzong's records would most likely mean that post gupta period the region of gandhara was hindu dominant.

Kushano Sassanid rule also extended to Gandhara.

After invading Gupta lands why exactly would the Guptas accept their vassalage ? After all it's not as if they were native to the region. They were interlopers .

Point is simple . Buddhism was dominant in Sind & by the looks of it they had an uneasy relationship with Dahir.

Having Hindu kings out there in Afghanistan is hardly a sign of Hinduism being resurgent there . After all , right throughout our history or at least in the first millenium CE , the ruling class were prudent enough to respect all religions & sects .Those that didn't were exceptions of which we've some knowledge.

Religious wars & persecution were practically unheard of without which Gandhara wouldn't see a resurgence in Hinduism as you put it & if it did without any effort as described above , then either your reading of the situation is wrong or it's a one time exception to the rule . Either way we've no evidence . Hence my earlier point on the religious demographics of Afghanistan stands .

In any case this is my last post on the topic. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Kushano Sassanid rule also extended to Gandhara.

After invading Gupta lands why exactly would the Guptas accept their vassalage ? After all it's not as if they were native to the region. They were interlopers .

Point is simple . Buddhism was dominant in Sind & by the looks of it they had an uneasy relationship with Dahir.

Having Hindu kings out there in Afghanistan is hardly a sign of Hinduism being resurgent there . After all , right throughout our history or at least in the first millenium CE , the ruling class were prudent enough to respect all religions & sects .Those that didn't were exceptions of which we've some knowledge.

Religious wars & persecution were practically unheard of without which Gandhara wouldn't see a resurgence in Hinduism as you put it & if it did without any effort as described above , then either your reading of the situation is wrong or it's a one time exception to the rule . Either way we've no evidence . Hence my earlier point on the religious demographics of Afghanistan stands .

In any case this is my last post on the topic. Let's agree to disagree.

Kushano-sassanid rule most likely did extend into gandhara pre-chandragupta II but there is little or no evidence of it extending into Sindh.

its common in indian history to accept vassalage of defeated foes. I don't think the Kidarites invaded India under the guptas to begin with - most likely they invaded the remnants of the kushano-sassanids before Samudragupta established vassalage over the region and then submitted to Samudragupta.

I dont think religious wars and persecution is required to make religion dominant in the dharmic fold - i think what is most likely, is that hindu population/buddhist population, when in minority, would range in the whole 15-30% and if sponsored by the ruling classes, would gradually grow to get to >50%

I think the hindu-buddhist trajectories of Cambodia for eg, is a good example - it didnt switch from hindu majority to buddhist majority due to persecution, but through sponsorship of the ruling classes.

Obviously if you promote a given religion as a ruler, it will make it grow.
Remember, these are not abrahamic religions, where being ruled by somoene from another religion will result in deep resentment from the population, who'd fight any changes tooth and nail. Its most likely the same kinda scenario as Hindu-Sikh syncretism in Punjab, where hindus weren't persecuted, but started to adopt sikhism due to sponsorship of the rules, though it didnt get to be majority there due to much shorter timeframes.