Did Shaivite King Persecute Buddhists?

[Guest guest]

Vinay Gupta

King Shashanka and the Buddhists: A Case Study in 'Secular' Indian

Historiography

 

'Secular' and Marxist historians in India like Romila Thapar often

cite the example of the supposed persecution of Buddhists by King

Shashank, the Shaivite ruler of Bengal, as a proof of their

politically motivated thesis that the notion of 'Hindu tolerance is a

myth. In fact, even some apolitical scholars like P. V. Kane (see

his 'History of Dharmashastra') state that Shashank did persecute the

Buddhists, although they take this as an exceptional act in the long

history of Hindu-Buddhist intercourse over the last 25 centuries.

 

Surprisingly, the only mention of the persecutions of Buddhists by

Shashanka occurs in the memoirs of Yuan Chwang. Chwang (popular

called Hieun Tsang) visited India during the latter part of the reign

of Emperor Harshavardhana, who fought King Shashank to avenge the

murder of his brother Rajyavardhana. The memoirs of the Chinese

traveler are however riddled with numerous inconsistencies, egotistic

accounts, fictitious anecdotes and mythical portions and gross

exaggerations. Goyal has analyzed the testimony of Yuan Chwang

critically and has compared it unfavorably with other contemporary

and parallel sources [GOYAL 1986: 87-96]. The Buddhist bias of

Chwang's testimony is clear to anyone who reads his memoirs. It is

clear that the traveler's intention was to convince his countrymen

that all was well with Buddhism in India and therefore it deserved to

spread in China as well. For instance, in his records, while

describing the religious assembly at Kanyakubja, he states that

several Brahmins became jealous at the attention received by him from

Emperor Harshavardhana, and therefore plotted to kill the latter.

However, his later letters written to other monks reveal that it was

actually some Hinayanist monks who plotted to kill the ruler [COWELL

et al. 1929: 98]. This inconsistency not only absolves the Brahmins

of hostility towards the Buddhists, but also shows that there was

considerable intra-Buddhist hostility as well. Moreover, Chwang

actually records that after defeating Shashanka, Harshavardhana

prescribed 'the punishment of cutting tongues of those who would eat

meat and of cutting the hands of those who would kill living beings

[GOYAL 1986: 48].' This rather gives the impression of a Buddhist

king imposing his beliefs on his non-Buddhist subjects by force.

 

Even a contemporary account of Emperor Harsha, viz. the Harshacharita

of Banabhatta is silent about these persecutions. The Harshacharita

has been published with an old, non-datable and a short gloss

called 'Sanketa' of Shankar Kavi with a Hindi translation [PATHAK

1964]. King Shashanka is not even mentioned in the Harsacharita

directly. There are some allusions to him in the work though [sHARMA

1970: 150]. The Sanketa mentions him explicitly as the King of Gauda

at the beginning of the chapter VI. The Arya Manju Sri Mulakalpa, a

Buddhist chronicle, characterizes Shashanka as a wicked king but does

not mention explicitly that he persecuted the Buddhists [sHARMA 1970:

156].

 

Even if Shashanka did persecute the Buddhists, it is likely that it

was probably not done out of religious reasons. Harshavardhana became

an avowed enemy of Shashanka because the latter killed Rajyavardhana,

who was the elder brother of and the predecessor of Emperor

Harshavardhana. Rajyavardhana was very strongly inclined towards

Buddhism, and therefore, the predominantly Buddhist populace of

Kanyakubja must have revolted against Shashanka when he murdered

Rajyavardhana to usurp his territories. This is further corroborated

by Bana when he says that during Harshavardhana's march against

Shashanka, people approached the former with presents and took the

opportunity to complain against the wrongs done to them (by

Shashanka) [sHARMA 1970: 245]. That the persecution was not a case of

a Hindu-Buddhist clash is borne out further by the testimony of Tsang

that the inhabitants of Kanyakubja followed diverse doctrines (but

were predominantly Buddhists) and lived in harmony with each other, a

testimony which is accepted as a proof of religious tolerance even by

Cowell and Thomas [COWELL et al 1929: xiii]. This is not to say that

the relations between Hindu and Buddhist sects were perfectly

cordial. Bana clearly says in chapter 7 of Harshacharita that in his

times, there was not a single Parasari (= ochre robed Buddhist) monk

who loved the Brahmanas. However, he does not elaborate why, but it

only shows that the Buddhists hated the Brahmins, and not vice versa

necessarily. The general picture in the Harshacharita is that of

harmony between various sects, as exemplified in the presence of

followers of 17 sects in the hermitage of the Buddhist monk

Divakaramitra [AGRAWALA 1969: 225].

 

Also is noteworthy the fact that while Shashanka himself is said to

be a Shaivite, it is another Shaivite king Bhaskaravarman of

Pragjyotisha (modern Assam) who assisted Emperor Harshavardhana

wholeheartedly in defeating Shashanka, according to both Bana Bhatta

and Yuan Chwang. Yuan Chwang himself praises Bhaskaravarman in his

memoirs for his hospitality.

 

It is also known that after being vanquished by Harshavardhana,

Shashanka continued to rule parts of coastal Bengal and Orissa. If he

were a pathological hater of the Buddhists, he would have tried to

exterminate Buddhism in those areas as well. However, no such

indications are available. Yuan Chwang himself mentions that Hinayana

Buddhist scholars came from Orissa to the court of Harshavardhana to

debate with him. Secondly, Buddhism is said to have survived in

Orissa till as late as the 14th Century.

 

Shashank is also maligned for usurping the Bodhagaya Shrine from the

Buddhists and for installing a Shivalinga therein. In reality, there

is no literary and archaeological evidence for this 'tradition' (that

appears to be a later concoction). Rather, the shrine appears to have

functioned as a Buddhist one for several centuries thereafter.

Rather, the literary sources inform us that when the Tibetan monk

Dharmaswamin visited the place in 1234 C.E., he discovered that the

icon of Lord Buddha had been walled up to save it from desecration by

the Muslim Turkish invaders. Soon thereafter, Buddhism declined and

rapidly disappeared from that area, thanks to Islamic persecution,

and the shrine was abandoned. In 1590 C.E., the local ruler permitted

a Shaivite Mahant to take over the place and use it for worship. In

recent times, the Buddhist status of the shrine has been restored,

with the help of Hindus, and the place is managed by a joint

committee of Hindus and Buddhists.

 

As Elst sums up [ELST 1992]:

"Hsuan Tsang's story from hearsay about Shashank's devastating a

monastery in Bihar, killing the monks and destroying Buddhist relics,

only a few years before Hsuan Tsang's own arrival, is contradicted by

other elements in his own report. Thus, according to the Chinese

pilgrim, Shashank threw a stone with the Buddha's footprint into the

river, but it was returned through a miracle; and he felled the bodhi

tree but a sapling from it was replanted which miraculously grew into

a big tree overnight. So, the fact of the matter was that the stone

and the tree were still there in full glory. In both cases, the

presence of the footprint-stone and the fully grown bodhi tree

contradict Husan Tsang's allegations, but he explains the

contradiction away by postulating miracles (which everywhere have a

way of mushrooming around relics, to add to their aura of divine

power). If we do not accept miracles, we conclude that the bodhi tree

which Husan Tsang saw, and which was too big to have been a recently

replanted sapling, cannot have been felled by Shashank.

 

Hsuan Tsang is notorious for his exaggerations and his insertions of

miracle stories, and he had to explain to China, where Buddhism was

readhing its peak, why it was declining in India. It seems safer to

base our judgement on the fact that in his description of Buddhist

life in the Ganga basin, nothing shows the effects of recent

persecutions. In fact, Hsuan Tsang himself gives a clue to the real

reason of pre-Islamic Buddhist decline, by describing how many

Buddhist monasteries had fallen into disuse, esp. in areas of

lawlessness and weak government, indicating that the strength of

Buddhism was in direct proportion to state protection and patronage.

Unlike Brahminism, which could sustain itself against heavy odds, the

fortunates of Buddhist monasticism (even more than those of the

Christian abbeys in early medieval Europe) were dependent upon royal

favours, as under Ashoka, the Chinese early T'ang dynasty, and the

rulers of Tibet and several Southeast-Asian countries".

 

Significantly, these 'secular' historians have stressed, time and

again, that Hinduism is a colonial construct. In other words, there

was no entity called 'Hinduism before the British came, and therefore

it is redundant to speak of a Hindu-Muslim conflict during the

medieval ages. One is therefore tempted to ask: If there was no

entity called 'Hinduism' in ancient ages, then is it not ludicrous to

speak of persecution of Buddhists by Hindus?

 

These 'secular' historians also need to inform us of the scriptural

authority that could have inspired Shashank to persecute Buddhists.

The fact is that Shashank died virtually unsung, and was not

eulogized as a Hindu hero even though he ostensibly championed

Hinduism at the cost of Buddhism. And that sums the difference

between the Islamic despots and persecutors of Hindus and the so-

called Hindu persecutors of Buddhists. While the former have numerous

panegyrics composed for them by Muslim chroniclers, and claim to have

drawn, with much justification, the inspiration of their acts of

religious bigotry from the Islamic scriptures, exactly reverse is the

case with Hindu rulers who supposedly persecuted Buddhists and Jains.

However, our secular/Communist historians like Romila Thapar are

inclined to dismiss even the reputation of Aurangzeb, the Muslim

fanatic as a 'hostile legend.' This is hardly surprising, when even

neo-Nazis try to negate even the war crimes of Hitler and his

followers.

 

In summary then, there is no conclusive evidence that Shashank

actually did persecute the Buddhists. Even if he did, it was a rare

aberration in the Hindu society, and not a part of a pervasive

pattern as seen in the following millennium under Islamic invasions

of India. Therefore, the example of Shashank does not disprove the

fact that Hindus have traditionally been tolerant towards members of

other religions.

 

Literature:

Agrawala, Vasudeva S.. The Deeds of Harsha. Prithivi Prakashan.

Varanasi. 1969

 

Cowell, E. B. and Thomas, F. W.. Harsa Carita of Bana. Royal Asiatic

Society; Oriental Translation Fund New Series No. VIII. London. 1929

 

Elst, Koenraad. Negationism in India. Voice of India. Delhi. 1992.

Relevant chapter available online at

http://www.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm

 

Goyal, S. R.. Harsha and Buddhism. Kusumanjali Prakashan. Meerut. 1986

 

Pathak, Jagannatha. Harsa-Charita of Banabhatta. Chowkhamba

Vidyabhawan.Vidyabhavan Sanskrit Granthamala No. 36. Varanasi. 1964

 

Sharma, Baijnath. Harsha and his Times. Sushma Prakashan. Varanasi.

1970