Lal Ded and Kashmiri Chronoclers
-
By
P N Kachru
Honourable
chairperson and respected guests, ladies and gentlemen.
The
title of my paper is Lal Ded and Kashmiri Chroniclers. The contents of this
paper might look harder to the receiving end but please bear with me to digest
it.
‘
History is a fact and not fantasy’ as expressed to me by my friend and
colleague, Mr. Surendra Pandita a few days before while exchanging our views on
history. From this statement I got the clue and became a plagiarist but, at the
same time, I tried to conceal this thieving by adding to it my own conviction.
Thus I declare that history is a fact but not fiction. It is this craft of
fictitiousness in Kashmiri chronicles, I would say till date barring a lone
example, from which Lal Ded, the great saint and genius of poesy suffered the
most through this crafty penmanship that relentlessly continues its onslaught
till today.
However,
while considering the craft of chronicle writing, the Indian tradition would
have suffered with a great vacuum but for the genius of the lone ranger named
Kalhan Pandit of mid twelfth century Kashmir. While honouring his lone
leadership in the tradition of Indian historiography, Kalhana has not been able
to prove himself a dispassionate surveyor as behoven of an ideal chronicler and
historiographer. Although the writer has thrown light on an assortment of clans
and groups who wielded power, intrigued and conspired, but the writer has
remained aloof and unobservant of the mainstream evolution of the society and
its development of socio-intellectual thought. The luminaries and philosophers,
who founded, propagated, built and broadened the socio-cultural vision of the
society, have remained obliterated from Kalhana’s chronicleship. No doubt,
stray references to Kshemendra’s Nripavali and mere passing mention of
Anandavardhan and Ratnakar, it leaves an ocean of history in oblivion. The
emergence of mighty movement of Kashmiri philosophers and thinkers who, not
only founded the values of Sarvastivaad and Madhyamika movement, but also laid
its foundations in central Asian, Tibetan and west Chinese regions. As many as
eighty philosophers and scholars have been identified who have founded the
movement in these regions, while hundreds of them have revolutionised the Kashmirian
society. Not to speak of only such scholars who enriched the Buddhist thought,
but also those who lead a one thousand BC old Paashupata and Kaalamukha thought
to the highest pinnacles of Shiavic philosophy. The great geniuses and seers
like Vasugupta and Utplacharya and the founder of Shivic philosophy,
Somanandanath, have not found any place in Kalhana’s chronicle. Even the world
genius like Abhinavguptapaad, who created history in the neighbourhood times of
the chronicler, does not find any place in Rajyatarangini. However, to a
greater extent, his impartial approach towards the events of history is the
chief ornament, which his followers have brazenfacedly done with and, instead
have become the committed chroniclers of court intrigues, partisans and
prejudicial commentators on palace intrigues.
Jona
Raj (1459 AD), the neighbour-historian of Lal Ded, while surveying through the
leaves of his Dutiya Rajatarangini, does not even mention her name who had left
her mortal frame only a few years before. On the other hand, for his obvious
commitments, could spare his page to Nundarishi who was a mere toddler during
the concluding years of Lal Ded’s life. Jona Raj states “Malla Noordeen
yawanaanaam paramaguram” – the chiefest guru of Muslims, on whom imprisonment
was imposed by the king Sultan Ali Shah during 1413 – 16 AD. Shrivara, in his
Zaina Rajyatarangini (1459 – 86 AD), Prajyabhat in his Rajyavalipataka (1486 –
1513 AD) and his pupil Shuka in his Rajatarangini, all of them have remained
discriminatingly unobservant of this genius of the times. These historians
cannot be left uncensured for their negligence towards the culture of the land.
The
Persian chronicles like Tarikhi Rashidee (1546 AD) of Mirza Duglaat,
Baharistaani Shahi (1614 AD), Tarikhi Kashmir (1617 – 18 AD) of Haider Malik
Chadura, all these have followed the foot steps of their Sanskrit historians
who preceded them by remaining discretely silent over the life of Lal Ded. Her
personality became a direct victim of the mutilation through a prejudicial
interpretation that originated from a factual incident quoted by Jona Raj in his Tarangini. He[1] writes that during a hunting programme in the forests, prince Shahab-ud-din was confronted by a group of three yoginis. The chief of them (Nayika) came forward and offered the prince a cupful of wine[2]. Almost all the subsequent chroniclers carry on with the tale through the pages of their histories, wherein a leading yogini[3] offers a cupful to the Sultan; but these authors change the contents of the cup either into juice or milk, thus hiding the fact and saving the Sultan from the exposure of having committed an unislamic act. Mirza Duglaat in his Tarihi Rashidi (1546 AD), remains discretely silent on the issue while Baharistani Shahi (1614 AD) turns the cup of wine into a cup of juice[4]. Later on another historian, Hyder Malik of Chadura, in his Tarikhi Kashmir (1617 – 18 AD) changes the cup of juice into a cup of milk[5]. Furthermore, these expressions of theirs exhibit their ignorance and blindness to the knowledge, not knowing that the wine being one of the prime accessories for consecration in the Shakta practice and worship. It becomes glaringly obvious that these historians, while interfering with the history, projected their prejudices and fundamentalist feelings in belying, misshaping and mutilating the events.
interpretation that originated from a factual incident quoted by Jona Raj in his Tarangini. He[1] writes that during a hunting programme in the forests, prince Shahab-ud-din was confronted by a group of three yoginis. The chief of them (Nayika) came forward and offered the prince a cupful of wine[2]. Almost all the subsequent chroniclers carry on with the tale through the pages of their histories, wherein a leading yogini[3] offers a cupful to the Sultan; but these authors change the contents of the cup either into juice or milk, thus hiding the fact and saving the Sultan from the exposure of having committed an unislamic act. Mirza Duglaat in his Tarihi Rashidi (1546 AD), remains discretely silent on the issue while Baharistani Shahi (1614 AD) turns the cup of wine into a cup of juice[4]. Later on another historian, Hyder Malik of Chadura, in his Tarikhi Kashmir (1617 – 18 AD) changes the cup of juice into a cup of milk[5]. Furthermore, these expressions of theirs exhibit their ignorance and blindness to the knowledge, not knowing that the wine being one of the prime accessories for consecration in the Shakta practice and worship. It becomes glaringly obvious that these historians, while interfering with the history, projected their prejudices and fundamentalist feelings in belying, misshaping and mutilating the events.
This
process of mishandling and mutilation proceeded further ravageously. The
meeting of a yogini with the Sultan is turned, as late as in mid seventeenth
century, into the meeting in the forest with Lal Ded herself. Baba Dawood
Mishkati in his Asrar-ul-Abraar (1654 AD), narrates that Sultan Alla-u-din’s
elder son, Shahabudin, during his hunting tour into the forest, met with Lal
Ded who, on occasions, would roam into the forest. She asked Shahabudin and his
three colleagues to rest a while, and offering him (the Sultan) a cupful of
juice[6], which
she got through nowhere[7]. Further
down the years another historian, Narayan Kaul Ajiz in his
Muntakhib-ul-tawarekh (1710 AD) remains discretely silent on this event.
Rafi-ud-din Gafil, in his Navadir-e-akhbar (1723 AD), repeats the episodes of
the forest but instead that of Lal Ded mentions the appearance of a saintly
woman from nowhere[8].
This
craft of manipulative chronicleship continued to slip down the mire and groped
through the darkness for the stories like the meeting between Lal Ded and Mir
sayed Ali Hamdani. No doubt, Khwaja Azam Dedmari in his Waqiyat-e-Kashmir
(1735-36) has referred to the story, but thanks to him and his investigative
method, the Khwaja declared that after inquiry and investigation, the story
could not be proved out to be correct[9]. Despite
this authenticative declaration of Azam Dedmari in mid 18th century,
it was as late as in mid 19th century that Birbal Kachroo in his
Majmua-al-Tawarikh described the meeting of Lal Ded and Mir Sayed Ali Hamdani
in a bazaar, and also stated the formers plunge into the flaming oven of a near
by baker.
Although
the statements of Birbal Kachroo are flimsy enough to stand the tests of
inquiry established by his predecessor Azam Dedmari only 100 years before him,
it becomes necessary on our part to put Kachroo’s statements to proper analysis
and to a thorough dissection in order to straighten the events. The historian’s
statement creates an additional alarm and curiosity, as it was for the first
time after more than four hundred and fifty years that the event was revealed
to the author, though bereft of any proof or historic investigation.
Firstly,
almost all the earlier chronicles starting from Jona-Rajyatarangini down to mid
17th century, have remained silent about Lal Ded, it was first of
all in Asrar-ul Abrar in 1654 AD that Baba Dawood Mishkati replaces the name of
the Nayika of the forest with the name of Lal Ded. Again, later on, Narain Kaul
Ajiz (1710 AD), Azam Dedmari (1736 AD) and Mohammad Aslam, till late 18th
century have remained silent on the issue of the meeting with Mir Sayea Ali
Hamdani. Therefore Birbal Kachroo’s statement stands unrelated and untenable.
Secondly,
the dating of contemporaneity also do not indicate any synchronisation.
Excepting the statement of Azam Dedmari, all the chroniclers have relied either
on approximations or their surmises; and therefore cannot be relied upon. The
only catagoric and precise statement of her death is from Dedmari, stating that
Lal Ded passed away during the rule of Sultan Shihab-u-Din that lasted from
1355 to 1373 AD. Even taking the concluding year of Sultan’s rule as the year
of Lal Ded’s year of death, and corresponding to this very year (1373 AD) Mir
Sayed Ali Hamdani was in the process of movement, alongwith his seven hundred
associates, to enter Kashmir valley for taking refuge from Taimur’s tyrannical
tests of riding the blazing metal horse. So there could not be any possibility
of his meeting with Lal Ded, she just then had left her mortal frame. This
analysis of dating further lends strength to Dedmari’s investigative statement
of
Thirdly,
probing further into the datings, the stay of Mir Sayed Ali Hamdani, as
documented by late Professor Jaya Lal Kaul, was from 1380 to 1386 AD[10]. This
statement of Professor Kaul further widens the gap of time between Lal Ded and
Mir Sayed Ali Hamdani.
My
reliability on the two sources – Dedmari’s Tarikhi-Kashmir and late Professor
Jaya Lal Kaul’s book on Lal Ded – is based, in the first case, on author’s
decisive and catagoric statement about precise period and, in second case, for
late professor’s dispassionate observance and study of documents as an observer
and an outsider to the happenings of history and its documentations. Not only
this, the late professor stands out, till today, the lone ranger who has stood
firm to set right the record of fictitious chronicleship, of which Lal Ded
became a direct victim.
Courtesy - Neelamatam journal
Comments
Post a Comment