Beyond Butshikan: Reassessing Sikandar Shahmiri’s “Iconoclast” Legacy — An Academic Essay by Khawar Khan Achakzai

Disclaimer
This paper makes no claims about contemporary communities, faiths, or identities. Its scope is limited to medieval political practices and the historiography surrounding them. Any extrapolation to modern religious or political debates falls outside the paper's scope and author's intent.

Abstract

This paper situates Sikandar Shahmiri’s alleged targeting of sacred sites within the broader political environment of pre-modern South Asia. Rather than exceptional or uniquely religious acts, such events could be understood within the context of long-established patterns where rulers’ actions—from Mihirakula’s bringing down of Buddhist monasteries to Harsha’s raids on Hindu temples—targeted sacred sites conceived as symbols of rival authority and as reservoirs of wealth to be seized. These acts, while being blame-some from the aspect of preservation, represented features that were not unique or particular to any of the aforementioned kings but reflected as a shared practiced among all of them. By contextualising Sikandar within this continuum, this study challenges modern communal readings and argues that such actions in medieval Kashmir followed the prevailing order of politics and state consolidation by one king to the other. At the same time, it cautions against interpretive frameworks that normalise or excuse violence under the guise of any historical precedents. Instead, the paper argues for a reassessment of reductive narratives that do not acknowledge the structural logic of medieval state consolidation, while still recognising the human, cultural, and religious losses produced by such excesses and transgressions.

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ikandar Shahmiri was the seventh sultan of Kashmir’s Shah Miri dynasty, which he ruled over from 1389 C.E. until his death in 1413 C.E. The historical narratives that portray him as “Sikandar Butshikan”—“the iconoclast” or “the idol-breaker”—have dominated Kashmiri historiography for centuries and remained, for the most part, uncontested. While chroniclers do report episodes of temple destruction during his rule—and the intention of the analysis in this paper is not to exonerate him of them—such historical incidents should be viewed through a more profound contextual lens rather than the lens of the all-too habituated reductionist communal biases that has remained unchecked until now and for the most part. Contemporary evidence and renewed research reveal a far more complex picture of Sikandar; it is one that challenges the simplistic view of his historical figure as a religion-driven iconoclast and zealot. Such a reductionist view is contested herein through the evaluation of archaeological evidence, the introduction of more nuanced political analysis, and through the critical examination of multiple primary sources.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-1000703742.jpg" title_text="Khawar-1000703742" show_in_lightbox="on" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||15px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

A sharda manuscript from Sultan Sikandar’s rule

It is pertinent to note that a large part of the administrative and executive machinery operating during Sikandar’s rule was run by Brahmins who were members of the highest-ranking varna (social class) within Hindu society. The Brahmin class was traditionally tasked with the custody of sacred and religious knowledge, apart from fulfilling the roles of high priests, teachers and scholars. As such, any force used or excess committed against the Brahmin community of Sikandar’s time would have led to the collapse of his rule or directly impacted his ability to remain in power. As argued by a notable Pandit historian, R.K Hangloo, there was a far more complex dynamic of power that connected Sikandar to the privileged Brahmin class of his time:

“I am not denying the fact that coercion was not exercised by Sultan Sikandar or his Prime Minister Suhabhatta to force some people to accept Islam. But force alone does not provide a satisfactory explanation because when non-Muslims were in majority why they did not protest? Even Laleshwari [Lal Ded] who was a contemporary of this period does not express this cruelty, instead criticises the nature and role of the priestly Brahmins and the overall system prevailing at that time. Besides, if this was the situation then how did Brahmins survive and wander and visit holy places during the period of turmoil, as stated by Jonaraja himself in the same text” (Hangloo 72).

Far from being a religious zealot determined to laying to waste the Hindu heritage of Kashmir, a critical examination of the contemporary sources reveals that Sikandar was a ruler like any other from the medieval world—one whose actions were primarily driven by realpolitik. Not only are there textual citations from credible sources that affirm this broader view of Sikandar’s figure within Kashmiri history, there is also sufficient archaeological evidence (presented in the next section) that further strengthens such a view.

[et_pb_heading title="Archaeological Evidence Contradicting the Iconoclast-Zealot Narrative" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]ompelling archaeological evidence that has been recovered challenges the reductionist narrative of Sikandar as an iconoclast-zealot within Kashmir’s history. A significant discovery documented by renowned Kashmir scholar, J.L. Bhan, in his work entitled Kashmir Sculptures, is one such major find.

The reference to the sculpture can also be found in S.L. Shali's Kashmir: History and Archaeology through the Ages.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-1000506091.jpg" title_text="Khawar-1000506091" show_in_lightbox="on" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||39px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

Four figurine Brahma sculpture dedicated to Sultan Sikandar (Source: Kashmir Sculptures by J.L. Bhan. Courtesy: Shakir Mir)

A four-armed Brahma figurine bears a Sharda script inscription that attributes its installation to Sultan Sikandar as a means of honoring him. It was reportedly sculpted in 1409 C.E. by the son of a Buddhist Sanghapati with Sultan Sikandar’s name engraved in it as a form of dedication. This inscription, discovered in a Srinagar temple, contradicts the rhetorical painting of Sikandar as an ruthless destroyer of Hindu religious imagery and iconography. The inscription—in direct reference to the sculpture being laid during the reign of "illustrious" Sikandar—reads “Sri Sikindra sa ha Reoya Sangapaty Rahulya Kastvehkene”. Given that the inscription is engraved in the disappearing and obsolete Sharda script—considered by many as a script that is indigenous to Kashmir since the 7^th century AD—an interpretative translation of the inscription would be: “The revered Sikindra, together with Reoya, the chief (or leader) associated with Rahula…”.[^4] While terms like “Reoya” (possibly the name of a place or person) and “Kastvehkene” (possibly a verb or place-name fragment) are ambiguous and require expert assessment, the rest of the words in this inscription clearly convey a tone of gratitude for and reverence towards Sikandar.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-1000505455.jpg" title_text="Khawar-1000505455" show_in_lightbox="on" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||35px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

Sri Sikindra sa ha Reoya Sangapaty Rahulya Kastvehkene
(Source: Kashmir Sculptures by J.L. Bhan. Courtesy: Shakir Mir)

Similar praise for Sikandar is found on a stone—dated 5th lunar day of Marga, Laukika year 4, corresponding to Friday December 3, 1428—engraved by a sculptor named Gaggaka, and cited by B.K. Deambi in his Corpus of Śāradā Inscriptions. The sculptor makes direct reference to the consecration of a Hindu hermitage at Khonamuh. A feature of great interest in the inscription is the second verse that reads the following:

“When four thousand years increased by five hundred and thirty of the Kali (era) had elapsed, there (ruled) in Satisara a king (named) Jayanolabadenasaha (Zain-ul- abidin), the son of the Illustrious Sakandara" (Deambi, Section 2, Image 9).[^5]

As can be observed from the inscription, both Sikandar and his son are thoroughly praised within the same passage. The fact that very little to no attention has been given to the connotation and context under which such inscriptions were produced in texts of Kashmir history builds on the argument that Sikandar might have depicted notoriously as a result of political motives and a communal intent.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-1000703729-scaled.jpg" title_text="Khawar-1000703729" show_in_lightbox="on" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||38px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

The Khonmoh inscription
(Source: Corpus of Śāradā inscriptions by B.K. Deambi

The archaeological evidence shows that Sikandar’s reign involved the repurposing of temple spoils that were retrofitted into new constructions, which included mosques and administrative buildings. Art historian Sameer Hamdani argues that prominent architectural features of the edifices built during the sultanate period show a conspicuous attempt on part of the new rulers to adopt the local vocabulary rather than importing and then imposing the one from outside Kashmir:

"...early Muslim religious buildings are reflective of a conscious attempt by the nascent Muslim community of Kashmir to merge both socially and culturally with past inherited traditions. The absence of a hegemonic rhetoric in the new architecture, or a portrayal of power through monumentalising of new religious building typologies, ensured the power or cultural force linked with Muslim rule remained rooted in the local land” (Hamdani 21).

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-05.jpg" title_text="Khawar-05" show_in_lightbox="on" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||36px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

Devsar Frame (Fair Use)

Further on, Hamdani notes the importance that Muslim rulers gave to adapting to local and regional cultures through a mode of assimilation that would lead to harmonious integration with their respective societies and cultures:

“The extreme simplicity of the mosques, in a geography that was used to monumentalize religious edifices, the use of local materials and local techniques in its construction is a testament to how Muslim religious edifices during the early period of Muslim rule were built upon a paradigm of assimilation rather than that of conquest and dominion” (Hamdani 37).

This practice was quite common throughout medieval India and represented resource utilisation rather than ideological destruction. The practice might be objectionable from a preservation perspective but it was an accepted practice throughout middle era in the Indian subcontinent. However, the historical context that such a cultural logic supports remains missing in the manner that Sikandar’s rule is interpreted within Kashmiri historiography. Furthermore, this standardised practice of integrating and then building upon indigenous and local styles, construction and techniques reflects an Islamic imperial ethos of incorporation and marks a clear distinction between Sikandar as a descendant of an empire of incorporation versus the idea that he was some hegemonic Muslim invader—a redundant stereotype used to facilitate communal prejudices—at the helm of an empire of extraction. It is important to note the difference between empires of incorporation and empires of extraction to understand the “paradigm of assimilation rather than that of conquest and domination.”

According to academic and theorist Gurminder K. Bhambra, empires of extraction were notoriously build on “a global system of private property organized through processes of dispossession, extraction, and appropriation.”

In contrast, as per Bhambra’s study, "Empires of incorporation...were organized around new intellectual and cosmological developments... [they] maintain distinction and hierarchy as they incorporate new people." One can only speculate to an extent as to whether “the use of local materials and local techniques in […] construction” as reflections of “a paradigm of assimilation rather than that of conquest and dominion” bears a direct connection with the nature of Muslim imperial expansion as one driven by incorporation, as opposed to the European imperial models of extraction driven by colonization. Such a thesis would require far deeper research that remains beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it becomes clear that there was an ethos of integration and incorporation at play in architectural innovations of Sikandar’s time as can be seen in multiple examples of such architectural practices.

One similar example from Kashmir can be extrapolated from a metal frame of Vishnu’s image that was discovered in Devsar district, Southwest of Anantnag. The frame showing an image of Vishnu stands 6½ feet high, weighs 360 pounds, is cast à-jour in one piece in brass and is completely covered with figural scenes that are circular in shape. The frame is in very good condition, with only one circular scene having broken out, whereas another has been replaced, perhaps in the 12th century, and that too in a very clumsy manner. This image frame is remarkable in many regards for several reasons. Whereas most medieval Hindu images in Northern India are enclosed within a frame consisting of a makara–kirtimukha arch supported on two columns, the Devsar frame has a parabolic outline that has most commonly been identified in Buddhist art. However, and interestingly so, such a parabolic outline has also been observed in frames found in Bengal and, occasionally, also in the Deccan, where it had been developed also for depictions of Hindu idols. This parabolic outline is fringed with small flames that were common in late Gupta, Pāla, Tibetan, and Far-Eastern Buddhist art. Likewise, such a work provides its plain, trifoliated centre for an image in a yoga position, that is equally common in Buddhist, Śaiva, and Jain iconography, but very rare in that of the Vaiṣṇava faith.

According to Hermann Goetz, the idol enshrined must have been the Buddha, as is apparent from the central figure of the frame. But  the figure depicted is not the divine teacher of the Buddhists; instead, it is his guise as the ninth avatara of Vishnu, whose celestial aspect, surrounded by cāmara-swinging attendants, adoring ṛṣis, and the earth goddess, appears on top of the Buddha avatara, crowning the whole iconographic scheme of the frame.

Taken together, the stylistic and iconographic evidence suggests that the Devasar frame predates its Vaishnavite re-contextualization and was originally conceived for a Buddhist image. The Devasar frame thus embodies a layered act of appropriation—architectural, iconographic, and theological—where the Buddhist form is preserved but its meaning is decisively rewritten under Sankaravarman. Far from a neutral aesthetic intervention, this transformation reflects a calculated assertion of royal authority and religious realignment, consonant with Kalhaṇa’s portrayal of Sankaravarman as a ruler of deliberate cynicism. As such, it stands as material proof to the entanglement of power, faith, and architecture in early medieval Kashmir.

Even in India before the advent of Islamic rule, Indian rulers reused stone and architectural fragments from earlier religious or dynastic structures. Ashokan pillars were relocated and re-inscribed by later rulers (e.g., Firuz Shah Tughlaq moved two such pillars to Delhi).

Meanwhile, in Rajasthan and Gujarat, the Rajput rulers often incorporated Islamic architectural fragments into their palaces and step-wells. This reflected a layered political landscaping rather than any ideologically driven practice. Similarly, in the Deccan sultanates,

reused temple materials were common at sites like Gulbarga and Bijapur—implemented in such a manner partly as pragmatic, and partly as symbolic.

According to Richard Maxwell Eaton—an American historian who currently operates as a professor of history at the University of Arizona with expertise in the social and cultural history of pre-modern India—the attacks on or appropriations of temples in these cases were highly selective political acts. As elaborated in his article “Temple desecration and Indo‑Muslim states”, such acts were aimed at dethroning the legitimacy of rival sovereigns and not blanket religious iconoclasm or communally driven attacks as has been portrayed in much of the dominant academic literature.

[et_pb_heading title="Political Context and Analysis of Realpolitik" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]eading historians Chitralekha Zutshi

and Richard G. Salomon

have often reinterpreted Sikandar’s actions through their academic work. In their writings, both scholars emphasise political, social, and textual contexts rather than pure religious motivations relevant to Sikandar’s figure. According to both, Sikandar’s policies were guided by realpolitik and not religious zealotry. Like previous Hindu rulers in Kashmir, Sikandar’s actions represented attempts to secure political legitimacy by asserting state power over powerful Brahmanical institutions and gaining access to the considerable wealth controlled by their religious establishments, although they were cloaked in religious language to provide legitimacy.

In her review of Khalid Bashir Ahmad’s book, Kashmir: Exposing the Myth Behind the Narrative (SAGE, 2017), Chitralekha Zutshi places emphasis on “the writing of history” as “a deeply political act that was meant to advance particular agendas. In regards to the figure of Sikandar and his notorious reputation constructed from such “writing of history” in what concerns temple destruction, Zutshi states the following:

"Sultan Sikandar’s actions against temples, correspondingly, were not driven by religious zealotry against Hinduism or Hindus – although they were cloaked in religious language to legitimise them – but were, rather, an attempt to gain access to the wealth controlled by Brahminical institutions and assert state power over Brahmans. Similar actions were undertaken routinely by earlier – in this case Hindu – rulers of early medieval Kashmir, who plundered temples and their endowments for these very reasons" (Zutshi, Scroll.in).

Medieval Kashmir’s temples were not merely religious centres but significant economic institutions controlling vast resources, land grants, and political influence. Sikandar’s targeting of these institutions paralleled actions taken by earlier Hindu rulers, like Harsha (1089-1101 CE), who plundered temples for their wealth.

As a result, Sikandar’s administrative appointments of the time further contradict the zealot-iconoclast narrative that has stood for long in the mainstream. His senior-most minister was Rai Magre, a Hindu, and his army chief was Achaladeva Achala, also Hindu.

Even when Jonaraja alludes to Sikandar’s iconoclastic activities, he ends up revealing how Brahmins continued to occupy administrative and scholarly positions during his time, which further complicates the modern politically-loaded characterisation of the Sultan.

In Persian chronicles Baharistan-i-Shahi and  Tārikh-i-Hassan, Sikandar’s court is described as containing“wise men of every faith” (“ahl-i-hunar wa danish az har millat”, which translates from Persian to “Those endowed with craft and knowledge, drawn from all nations.”). Sikandar married a Hindu woman, which was indicative of maintaining deep personal relationships that transcended strict religious boundaries and took place across the political and religious landscape of the medieval Kashmiri world. The diverse religious composition of Sikandar's court and the relationships that were core to his personal life challenge any generalised projections that have come to dominate in mainstream depictions of his figure.

[et_pb_heading title="Critical Analysis of Historical Sources" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he primary source for the iconoclast narrative, found originally in Jonaraja’s Rajatarangini, requires careful contextual analysis. Jonaraja was commissioned by Sikandar’s successor, Zain-ul-Abidin to continue writing the history of the Kings in line with Pandit Kalhana’s renditions. His Rajtaranghini is popularly called Jainarajtaranghini i.e. Rajtaranghini of Zaina (Zain-ul-Abideen).  Zain-ul-Abidin sought to bring the Brahminical elite back into the royal fold after their alleged marginalisation under his father’s administration.

This political context suggests that exaggerating Sikandar’s persecution of Hindus served Zain-ul-Abidin’s legitimisation strategy by positioning himself as a benevolent ruler in contrast to his supposedly tyrannical predecessor.

Jonaraja’s portrayal of Sikandar as a persecutor of Hindus could be understood as part of a greater rhetoric serving Zain-ul-Abidin’s legitimisation strategy. By casting himself as the humane and tolerant ruler succeeding a tyrannical predecessor, Zain-ul-Abidin consolidated moral and political authority among Kashmir’s traditional elite class of Brahmins. This helped him reaffirm continuity with the pre-Islamic cultural order and rulership. Despite this deeply rhetorical nature of Jonaraja’s magnum opus, he, at places within his own writings, cannot hold himself back from praising the very same person he relegates to the static figure of a cruel iconoclast. In one relevant passage, Jonaraja mentions how it was Suhabhatta who had insisted that Sultan Sikandar impose jizya upon the Brahmins, a ruling that Sultan Sikandar refused to agree upon. This passage in of itself serves as documented historical and textual proof yet again to challenge the largely accepted notion that Sikandar had been the one to impose jizya on Kashmiri Hindus.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-1000703730.jpg" title_text="Khawar-1000703730" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||35px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

Jonaraja’s Jaina Rajtaranghini (Trans: J.C. Dutt)

It is of interest to note here that in regards to taxation policies set during Sikandar’s time, the distinction between “empires of extraction”—represented primarily by European colonisers—and “empires of incorporation”—such as the Ottoman, Persian, Mughal empires—marks a great difference in how taxes were collected and then put to use. Theorist and academic Gurminder K. Bhambra points out that “As George Wingate wrote in 1859, commenting on the British implementation of an income tax on colonial subjects in India: the taxes collected ‘constitute … an absolute loss and extinction of the whole amount withdrawn from the taxed country’ (1859, p. 57–58)” (Bhambra).

In the case of empires of extraction, driven primarily by capitalist exploitation of a colonial framework and its political economy, the taxes collected were transferred to the centre of empire as was the case of the British colonial administration’s tax collection from India.

On the contrary, under the model of empires of incorporation, taxes such as the jizya were levied on non-Muslims who were not obligated to pay zakaat (paid solely by Muslim subjects) and such amounts were put to use in part for protection of property, safeguarding of religious rights, military expansion, and public infrastructure and public services—thereby facilitating the reutilisation of tax collections back into their respective locales in one form or another. As such, even in questions of implementing taxation schemes such as the jizya on the Brahmin elite, which again is attributed to Suhabhatta, the historical writing about such taxation has been portrayed as biased and communally-driven—against the Brahmin elite of the time—without taking into consideration the zakaat as another form of mandatory and legally-binding form of taxation made compulsory solely for the Muslims of the time.

As for the passage from the epithet used by Jonaraja for Sikandar, the Sultan is referred to as Saumya Sankalpa, translated as“one whose purpose was tempered by kindness” and also addressed as “Shri Shikhandara” (translated as “Illustrious Sikandar”). The fact that Jonaraja believes“destruction seems ever to be caused in this world by one’s own people” in direct reference to the neo-convert Suhabhatta again validates a more complex and moderate view of Sultan Sikandar, especially in his rulings and in his governance.

The bias against Sikandar has been carried forth to the present times and his detractors leave no opportunity to whip his memory—whatever the occasion or subject. The following excerpt from an unrelated work, Chinar Tree, written by Prem Nath Wanchoo, offers a typical example of such antagonistic portrayals:

"He destroyed temples and shrines including those of Martand, Vijeshwari, and Sureshwari. After their destruction he built mosques over the razed ground. The Hindu shrines were associated with the plantings of Bouin plane trees in Kashmir; those too must have been dealt with in the same way as temple structures."

It is not difficult to observe the distortion here. Neither the three temples mentioned in Prem Nath Wanchoo’s Chinar Tree were demolished by Sikandar nor were mosques built by him at their sites. The Martand temple is till this day a protected archaeological site maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and is also a tourist attraction that gained more prominence when it was featured in Vishal Bhardawaj’s 2014 film, Haider. The Vijeshwar temple was a site visited by Sikandar’s son and successor, Zain-ul-Abidin, during a pilgrimage when he was accompanied by his court historian, Srivara. The ruins of Sureshwar temple at Soura were observed and recorded by archaeologist Henry Hardy Cole as late as towards the end of the 19th century.

[et_pb_blurb title="Relevant Reading: How Kashmir's Medieval Persian 'Tarikhs' Were Mined for Modern Politics" image="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Copy-of-Copy-of-Lead-image-size-6.png" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" header_font="Montserrat||||||||" header_font_size="20px" body_font="Montserrat||||||||" body_text_color="#000000" background_color="rgba(237,240,0,0.21)" max_width="500px" module_alignment="center" custom_margin="||105px||false|false" custom_padding="15px|15px|0px|15px|false|true" link_option_url="https://thewire.in/history/how-kashmirs-medieval-persian-tarikhs-were-mined-for-modern-politics" link_option_url_new_window="on" header_font_size_tablet="20px" header_font_size_phone="17px" header_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" body_font_size_tablet="" body_font_size_phone="15px" body_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" body_line_height_tablet="" body_line_height_phone="1.5em" body_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" border_radii="on|15px|15px|15px|15px" border_width_all="1px" border_color_all="#EDF000" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"]

Shaikr Mir, The Wire

Anchored in a cultural and social milieu different from ours, these texts ought to have been understood through conscientious interpretation of historians.

[/et_pb_blurb]

According to Sameer Hamdani, while Sikandar’s rule shows a consistent increase in the role of non-Kashmiri missionaries at the court, a considered policy of conversion at the behest of the court, it also represents a dichotomy between the formal, orthodox and the popular representation of Islam in the region.  The medieval Muslim hagiographic and historical accounts may have exaggerated Sikandar’s destruction of non-Muslim religious sites in a classical representation of religious piety.  However, according to Hamdani, the tendency of some writers in the 20th century CE to shield the Sultan from these iconoclastic activities is not historically accurate.

The Baharistan-i-Shahi, composed in 1614 C.E., and arriving exactly two centuries after Sikandar’s death, shows clear sectarian bias. Its author being a probable Shia follower praises Sikandar’s alleged persecution of Hindus while criticising Zain-ul-Abidin for reviving “idolatry and heresy”. The chronicle reflects retrospective moralising of one by-gone era and un-moralising of the other, something taken from Jonaraja’s book. Tohfatul Ahbab, a text that was composed earlier, most likely in the 16th century, by Mulla Ahmad, a Shia-affiliated Noorbakshi scholar during the sultanate period takes on a similar position in regards to Sikandar. By the time of its composition, the historical Sikandar had already become a cipher for intolerance within Kashmiri historical discourse and the author simply tries to reinforce that by inflating the claims of his literary predecessors.

These latter-day sources were shaped shaped by the sectarian, political, and literary climates of 16th-century Kashmir. As noted by Santoshi Ogura, the Persian hagiographies reflect the ideological priorities of their respective periods rather than accurate historical documentation and they should be understood by taking the historical and sectarian character of the texts into consideration.

However, there are accounts from latter-day chroniclers that could be used to reconstruct a picture that is completely at odds with what we are accustomed to believing. In Abul Fazl’s documentation, it is mentioned that the temples were in a state of “perfect preservation”. Ferishta, the author of Tarikh-e-farishta, does attribute the demolition of temples to Sikandar, but he also contradictorily describes many of them as being in existence unto his own time i.e 1600 C.E.

In Tarikh-e-Rashidi, Mirza Haider Dughlat while describing the wonders of Kashmir, also describes its numerous "idol temples" as the foremost of the wonders found in the region. He goes on to give the minute details of their geometry, build and enormity, putting emphasis on how the stones are placed in position without cement or mortar and how such stones are so carefully arranged such that not even a sheet of paper can be passed through them. These statements by Mirza Haider point only to the extremely well-preserved shape these were in as late as 16th century.

[et_pb_heading title="Natural Disasters as Causes of Temple Destruction" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]M[/dropcap]odern geological and archaeological research has identified massive earthquakes as one of the primary cause of temple damage and destruction in Kashmir.

The region lies within a highly active seismic zone, and documented earthquakes in 1555, 1736, 1779, 1784, and 1828 CE caused extensive damage to stone structures. The characteristic damage patterns remain highly visible in Kashmir’s ancient temples: tilted pillars, cracked stones, and displaced building blocks— all of which match earthquake damage rather than deliberate human destruction.

Research by seismologists Mayank Joshi and V.C. Thakur demonstrated that ancient temples in the region show clear evidence of earthquake damage rather than human iconoclastic intent. Their analysis of 7th-century temples in the Chamba district revealed damage patterns consistent with the 1555 Kashmir earthquake and the 1905 Kangra earthquake. The study of the Pandrethan temple near Srinagar showed that displaced blocks visible in 19th-century photographs resulted from earthquake shaking rather than human attempts at destruction.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Sikandar-Martand.jpg" title_text="Sikandar-Martand" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

Martand Sun temple and its damaged stones

The Martand Sun Temple is often cited as the site of Sikandar’s most significant act of destruction. The marvellous engineering required for its construction makes it particularly enduring of any sub-natural damage. The robust structural design suggests that its destruction would have required considerable effort beyond human capabilities typically attributed to medieval iconoclasm. The temple’s location on an elevated plateau made it particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage. A wide array of research shows evidence of earthquake damage that predates any alleged human destruction. Archaeological analysis reveals that the temple’s massive stone blocks were displaced in patterns consistent with seismic activity.

In addition to this evidence, the fact that the Martand Sun Temple was build using limestone did not help in its conservation. Limestone is considered to be highly vulnerable to rain erosion, especially via a chemical process known as “dissolution or carbonation”. The combination of rain and wind can over decades and centuries of years create sinkholes, gorges, caves and grooved pavements, while exposed limestone usually develops vertical or grooved features known as “karren”, which are created by running rainwater. Finally, in certain environments, limestone pavement erodes at a rate of 0.5mm per year by rain and dissolution.

Such scientific and geological factors notwithstanding, the weathered state of the limestone that was used to build the Martand Sun Temple has been equally overlooked in certain writings that favor the narrative of Sikandar’s attempt to destroy such a historical landmark.[et_pb_heading title="Internal Politics and the Role of Suhabhatta " _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t was not only the lower sections of the society that were initiated into the discipline of Islam, but people from royalty like Suha Bhat (Suhabhatta) also accepted the new faith as did his family. Suha Bhat was Sikandar’s Commander-in-Chief And after his conversion, he adopted the Islamic name of Saif-ud-Din. His daughter Bibi Baria was married to Sayyid Mohammad Hamadani after the death of Taj Khatun.  Much of the temple destruction traditionally attributed to Sikandar was carried out by Suha. Jonaraja’s account clearly indicates that Suhabhatta was driven by his zeal as a new convert and his desire to suppress potential opposition from his former community. As a result, he played a key role in orchestrating many of the anti-Hindu policies that are assocaited with Sikandar.

By the time of Sultan Sikandar came to reign, the old Brahmanical order had begun to lose its centuries-long monopoly over political power. The Shahmiri Sultans introduced a new Persianate administrative culture and incorporated non-Brahmin officials, Turkic military elites, and foreign scholars into their ranks. This diluted the exclusivist control once exercised by the Sanskrit-educated intelligentsia. Within this milieu, Suhabhatta came to embody the social realignment of the period. His conspicuous zeal for Islamic reform can be interpreted either as an attempt to legitimise his new identity within an evolving political order—a psychological dynamic historians describe as“convert’s syndrome”—or as political opportunism by a convert seeking to demonstrate loyalty to his new faith. This internal dynamic, a converted Brahmin targeting his former community, represents intra-communal conflict rather than systematic state-sponsored religion driven iconoclasm.

A point of great historical importance here is that when Suha Bhat set about pulling down temples on a large scale, the leading Kashmiri Muslim Sufi, Hazrat Noor-ud-din Noorani (Nund Rishi), bitterly protested, arguing that Islam did not sanction such heinous acts. This opinion was shared by several other Muslim ‘Ulama and Sufis as well. This ethos of respect and preservation is found in an example in the Tabaqat-I Akbari , which narrates that when they heard that Sultan Sikandar Lodi (r. 1489-1517) was planning on destroying some temples, a group of high-ranking 'Ulama vehemently protested against it.

[et_pb_heading title="Precedents of Temple Destruction by Hindu Rulers " _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he zealot-iconoclast epithet for Sikandar very conveniently ignores the precedent of temple destruction by Hindu rulers in Kashmir. For example, Mihirkula’s role as a persecutor is documented in various sources, including inscriptions like the Gwalior Inscription, Chinese Buddhist travelogues by Song Yun and Xuanzang, and the Kashmiri chronicle by Kalhana. These texts, alongside archaeological evidence, paint a complex picture of a ruler described as both a tyrant and a patron of Shaivism. Mihirakula’s reputation as a persecutor of Buddhists stems primarily from Chinese Buddhist sources. As per H. Tsang, at the time of Mihirakula’s persecutions of Buddhists, there were a 100 monasteries sheltering nearly a thousand monks in the entirety of Kashmir. Mihirakula killed hundreds without compassion while destroying Buddha’s begging bowl that had been preserved in Srinagar till then.

Similarly, the Chinese scholar, traveler and monk Xuanzang claims in his writings that Mihirakula demolished 1,600 Buddhist stupas and monasteries and killed thousands of monks and laypeople.

Song Yun, the Buddhist monk who visited Mihirakula’s court around 520 CE, describes him as a ruler who initially rejected religion but later adopted Shaivism.

The Rajatarangini reinforces this image, portraying him as a tyrant who“resembled kala (death)” and caused widespread suffering.

In a similar manner, King Harsha (1089-1101 CE) systematically plundered temples for their wealth, establishing a pattern of employing religious institutions as sources of political and economic resources, as is lamented by Pandit Kalhana in his Rājataraṅgiṇī.

[et_pb_image src="https://www.inversejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Khawar-08.jpg" title_text="Khawar-08" align="center" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" custom_margin="||120px|||" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_image]

Harsha’s actions were motivated by financial ambitions and desire for political control, demonstrating that temple destruction was a political tool used by rulers regardless of their religious affiliation. Medieval temples in Kashmir controlled significant economic resources, including land grants, agricultural produce, and monetary wealth. Sikandar’s targeting of these institutions could be understood as attempts at the state consolidation of economic resources rather than acts of religious persecution. This practice paralleled similar actions taken by non-Muslim and Muslim rulers throughout medieval India who sought to centralise economic control regardless of religious affiliations.

Some sources suggest that Harsha adopted Islamic-influenced practices, including iconoclasm, due to his employment of Turkish mercenaries and his adaptation of Muslim administrative practices. This theory of“Turuskadarsana” influence (Turkish philosophy), while contested, suggests that iconoclastic practices in Kashmir were political strategies rather than inherent religious characteristics of Muslim rule. While these actions are blameworthy from the modern perspective, they are placed against this longue durée backdrop. As a consequence, Sikandar Shahmiri’s reign appears less of an aberration and more of a continuation of the deep-rooted, pre-existing logic of state formation in the Kashmir of his time. The actions of Sikandar can be read as part of a well-established political grammar of the era and not an anomaly driven by isolated incidents of religious fanaticism.

[et_pb_heading title="Historiographical Bias and Myth-Making" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he iconoclast narrative surrounding Sikandar represents a classic example of historical myth-making driven by political and communal undertones. Post-1819 Brahmin historiographers, writing during the return of non-Muslim rule, had strong incentives to emphasise past persecution under Muslim rulers. They drew upon the Orientalist historiography, which explicitly sought to demarcate Hindu and Muslim histories into mutually antagonistic categories. This narrative served contemporary political purposes by justifying Dogra rule and marginalising Muslim claims to legitimate governance in Kashmir.

Contemporary scholars like Khalid Bashir Ahmad have systematically challenged the iconoclast narrative through careful analysis of primary sources and archaeological evidence. In his article, “Distortions in (Kashmir) narratives often served the interests of rulers” (Kashmir Life, 2017), the author states the following in regards to the historicized accusations against Sikandar:

“Sikander's detractors completely ignore many other factors that absolve him of his supposed crimes against the minority community. The discovery of an image of Brahma from a Srinagar temple bearing an inscription in Sharda script attributing its installation to Sikandar belies the accusation against him of being the worst idol- breaker. Also, massive earthquakes suffered by Kashmir throughout its history have now been scientifically established as the real culprit for destruction of huge stone buildings like temples. Sikandar, it may be recalled had married a Hindu woman, who converted to Islam, his senior most minister was Rai Magre, a Hindu, and his army chief, Achaladeva Achala, also was a Hindu” (Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir Life).

Ahmad’s research demonstrates that many claims about Sikandar’s destruction of temples refer to structures that were either destroyed centuries before his reign or never existed at all. This revisionist scholarship reveals the extent to which the iconoclast narrative has been constructed and amplified over time.

As a result, whether we consult with Khalid Bashir Ahmad’s writings, Chitralekha Zutshi’s academic work, or that of other scholars who have taken on the task of revisiting medieval Kashmiri historiography, there appears to be a clearcut agreement between the historians of the present as to how Sikandar has been portrayed. While such writers, historians and academics may hold different—and sometimes opposing—views on key topics within Kashmiri history, there appears to be a general consensus on the subject of Sikandar and the misrepresentation of his historical figure.[et_pb_heading title="Religious Tolerance and Syncretism" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here is evidence of religious accommodation throughout the Muslim rule in Kashmir. According to Professor Ashraf Wani, though Islam became the court religion in 1343 C.E. after Shahmir ascended to the throne, the administration continued to be in the hands of the traditional class—the Brahmins. The influence of Pandits became most prominent during the time of Zain-ul-Abideen, when they were in charge of land settlements and agriculture. During the Chak rule, Brahmins continued to serve in the administration. There are references to many a Kashmiri Brahmins such as Tota Ram, Miru Pandit, Bulaqi Pandit, Makund Pandit, Pandit Mahadeo, Mahesh Shankar Das and Mukund Ram Khar serving the Mughals in positions of high influence. Even during the rule of Aurangzeb, Brahmins continued to manage the affairs of state while rising to prominence.

This paper does not exonerate Sikandar’s reign of any act of iconoclasm or excesses but it does point towards considerable religious accommodation and syncretism during his rule. The installation of commemorative works centered on Hindu religious imagery, the retention of Hindu administrators, and the adaptive reuse of religious architecture all point to a pragmatic approach that sought to incorporate rather than eliminate existing religious traditions. The proofs are evident in numerous newly discovered epigraphs, inscriptions and sculptures that need to be studied, documented and conserved.

Kashmir’s historical tradition of religious syncretism, which combined Hindu, Buddhist, and later Islamic elements, provides context for understanding Sikandar’s policies. The region’s long history of cultural adaptation and religious flexibility suggests that extreme iconoclasm would have been inconsistent with local traditions and politically counterproductive.
[et_pb_heading title="Toward a Nuanced Historical Understanding" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he evidence overwhelmingly challenges the simplistic characterisation of Sultan Sikandar Shahmiri as an iconoclast driven by religious fanaticism. Archaeological discoveries, including inscriptions and religious installations commissioned during his reign, directly contradict claims of systematic anti-Hindu policies. The persistence of this narrative reflects the complex interplay of historiographical bias, political myth-making, and communalised memory rather than historical accuracy and veracity.

A nuanced understanding of Sikandar’s reign reveals him as just another ruler of medieval times who operated within the complex political, economic, and social framework of Kashmir. The new evidence must serve as an impetus to re-examine Sikandar’s reign with renewed rational zeal, urging both Hindu and Muslim historians and intellectuals to rely on facts rather than reductionist, politically-driven generalising biases that (mis)inform any semblance of understanding Kashmir’s great past and greater history.

[et_pb_heading title="Footnotes" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

[^1]: Rattan Lal Hangloo. (2022). The State in Medieval Kashmir (p. 72). Routledge.

[^2]: Bhan, J. L. (2010). Kashmir Sculptures: An Iconographical Study of Brahmanical Sculptures (Vols. 1–2). Readworthy Publications Pvt. Ltd.

[^3]: Shali, S. L. (1993). Kashmir: History and Archaeology Through the Ages. Indus Publications Co.

[^4]: Ahmad, I. (2022, February 12). Preserving Sharda Epigraphs. Greater Kashmir. https://www.greaterkashmir.com/opinion/preserving-sharda-epigraphs/

[^5]: Deambi, B. K. (1998). Corpus of Śāradā Inscriptions. Agam Kala Prakashan. Section 2, Image 9.

[^6]: Hamdani, S. (2021). The Syncretic Traditions of Islamic Religious Architecture of Kashmir (early 14th–18th century) (p. 21). Routledge.

[^7]: Hamdani, S. (2021). The Syncretic Traditions of Islamic Religious Architecture of Kashmir (early 14th–18th century) (p. 37). Routledge.

[^8]: Bhambra, G. K. (2024). “Empires and Colonialism: An Essay in Historiographic Reconstruction” 1. Tidsskrift for Samfunnsforskning, 65(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.18261/tfs.65.3.6

[^9]: Goetz, H. (2008). Studies in the History and Art of Kashmir and the Indian Himalaya (p. 119). Jaykay Publishers.

[^10]: Bhandarkar, R. G., & Bhandarkar, D. R. (2000). Asoka. Asian Educational Services. (pp. 206–209).

[^11]: Wagoner, P. B., & Rice, J. H. (2001). "From Delhi to the Deccan: Newly discovered Tughluq monuments at Warangal-Sultānpur and the beginnings of Indo-Islamic architecture in southern India." Artibus Asiae, 61(1), 77–117.

[^12]: Wagoner, P. B., & Davis, R. (2024). "Reuse and iconoclasm in the medieval Deccan: A city-gate and a Sufi shrine at Daulatabad." Archives of Asian Art, 74(2), 197–228.

[^13]: Eaton, R. M. (2000). "Temple desecration and Indo‑Muslim states." Journal of Islamic Studies, 11(3), 283–319.

[^14]: Zutshi, C. (2017, October 24). "This book claims to expose the myths behind Kashmir’s history. It exposes its own biases instead." Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/855050/this-book-claims-to-expose-the-myths-behind-kashmirs-history-it-exposes-its-own-biases-instead

[^15]: Salomon, R., & Slaje, W. (2016). "Review of Kingship in Kaśmīr (AD 1148–1459). From the pen of Jonarāja, court paṇḍit to Sulṭān Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn." Indo-Iranian Journal, 59(4), 393–401.

[^16]: Wink, A. (2002). Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic Conquest, 11th–13th centuries (Vol. 3, p. 311). Brill.

[^17]: Khalid Bashir Ahmad. (2025, November 23). "Distortions in (Kashmir) narratives often served the interests of rulers." Kashmir Life. Retrieved December 5, 2025, from https://kashmirlife.net/distortions-in-kashmir-narratives-often-served-the-interests-of-rulers-148962/

[^18]: Sufi, G. M. D. (2015). Kashīr: Being a History of Kashmir from the Earliest Times to Our Own (Vol. 1, pp. 149–152). Gulshan Books.

[^19]: Truschke, A. (2021). The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Muslim Rule (pp. 94–97). Penguin / Columbia University Press

[^20]: Bhambra, G. K. (2024). “Empires and Colonialism: An Essay in Historiographic Reconstruction” 1. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 65(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.18261/tfs.65.3.6

[^21]: Dutt, J. C. (Trans.). (1986). Rajatarangini of Jonaraja (1st reprint, p. 65). Gyan Publishing House.

[^22]: Hamdani, H. S. (2021). The Syncretic Traditions of Islamic Religious Architecture of Kashmir (Early 14th–18th Century) (pp. 58–60, 118). Routledge

[^23]: Mir, S. (2024, March 11). "How Kashmir’s medieval Persian ‘tarikhs’ were mined for modern politics." The Wire from https://m.thewire.in/article/history/how-kashmirs-medieval-persian-tarikhs-were-mined-for-modern-politics/

[^24]: Ogura, S. (2025). Kashmir: A Cultural Crossroads of the Sanskrit and Persian Cosmopolises (Vol. 2, p. 160). Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA).

[^25]: Cunningham, A. (2021). Temple Architecture of Kashmir (p. 7). Bestseller Publisher.

[^26]: Dughlat, M. M. (2022). The Tārīkh-i-Rashīdī (E. Denison Ross, Trans.) (p. 426). Gyan Publishers.

[^27]: Bilham, R., Bali, B. S., Bhat, M. I., & Hough, S. (2010). "Historical earthquakes in Srinagar, Kashmir: Clues from the Shiva Temple at Pandrethan." In M. Sintubin, I. S. Stewart, T. M. Niemi & E. Altunel (Eds.), Ancient Earthquakes (GSA Special Paper 471, pp. 107–117). Geological Society of America.

[^28]: Bilham, R. Temples of the Kashmir Valley. CIRES, University of Colorado. Retrieved December 5, 2025, from https://cires1.colorado.edu/~bilham/KashmirTemples/TemplesofKashmir.html

[^29]: Joshi, M., & Thakur, V. C. (2016). "Signatures of 1905 Kangra and 1555 Kashmir earthquakes in medieval period temples of Chamba region, Northwest Himalaya." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160155)

[^30]: Lone, S. A. (2024). "Traces of Martand Sun Temple of Kashmir Valley: An architectural study." International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(2), 1471–1474.

[^31]: Tang, W., Davidson, C. I., Finger, S., & Vance, K. (2004). “Erosion of limestone building surfaces caused by wind-driven rain: 1. Field measurements.” Atmospheric Environment, 38(33), 5589–5599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.06.008

[^32]: Truschke, A. (2021). The Language of History: Sanskrit narratives of Muslim rule (pp. 96). Penguin / Columbia University Press.

[^33]: Xuanzang. (1996). The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions (R. Li, Trans.). Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research.

[^34]: Chavannes, E. (1903). Voyage de Song Yun dans l’Udyāna et le Gandhāra. Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient, 3(3), 416–417.

[^35]: Daryaee, T. (2021). King of the Seven Climes: A History of the Ancient Iranian World (3000 BCE–651 CE) (pp. 207–208). Brill.

[^36]: Kalhaṇa. (2017). Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī: A Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir (Vol. 1, p. 353, vv. 1092–1097). Motilal Banarsidass.

[^37]: Ahmad, K. B. (2017, August 24). ‘Distortions in (Kashmir) narratives often served the interests of rulers’. Kashmir Life. https://kashmirlife.net/distortions-in-kashmir-narratives-often-served-the-interests-of-rulers-148962/

[^38]: Ahmad, I. (2024). "Document the undocumented Sharda epigraphs." Daily Excelsior. Retrieved December 5, 2025, from https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/document-the-undocumented-sharda-epigraphs/

[et_pb_heading title="References" _builder_version="4.27.6" _module_preset="default" title_font="Montserrat||||||||" max_width="700px" module_alignment="center" title_font_size_tablet="" title_font_size_phone="22px" title_font_size_last_edited="on|phone" title_line_height_tablet="" title_line_height_phone="1.5em" title_line_height_last_edited="on|phone" global_colors_info="{}" theme_builder_area="post_content"][/et_pb_heading]

Ahmad, I. (2024, December 5). "Document the undocumented Sharda epigraphs." Daily Excelsior. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/document-the-undocumented-sharda-epigraphs/

Ahmad, K. B. (2017, August 24). "Distortions in (Kashmir) narratives often served the interests of rulers." Kashmir Life. https://kashmirlife.net/distortions-in-kashmir-narratives-often-served-the-interests-of-rulers-148962/

Ahmad, K. B. (2025, November 23). "Distortions in (Kashmir) narratives often served the interests of rulers." Kashmir Life. https://kashmirlife.net/distortions-in-kashmir-narratives-often-served-the-interests-of-rulers-148962/

Bhambra, G. K. (2024). “Empires and Colonialism: An Essay in Historiographic Reconstruction” 1. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 65(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.18261/tfs.65.3.6

Bhan, J. L. (2010). Kashmir Sculptures: An Iconographical Study of Brahmanical Sculptures (Vols. 1–2). Readworthy Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Bhandarkar, R. G., & Bhandarkar, D. R. (2000). Asoka. Asian Educational Services.

Bilham, R. (n.d.). "Temples of the Kashmir Valley." CIRES, University of Colorado. https://cires1.colorado.edu/~bilham/KashmirTemples/TemplesofKashmir.html

Bilham, R., Bali, B. S., Bhat, M. I., & Hough, S. (2010). "Historical earthquakes in Srinagar, Kashmir: Clues from the Shiva Temple at Pandrethan." In M. Sintubin, I. S. Stewart, T. M. Niemi & E. Altunel (Eds.), Ancient Earthquakes (GSA Special Paper 471, pp. 107–117). Geological Society of America.

Chavannes, E. (1903). "Voyage de Song Yun dans l’Udyāna et le Gandhāra." Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient, 3(3), 416–417.

Cunningham, A. (2021). Temple Architecture of Kashmir. Bestseller Publisher.

Daryaee, T. (2021). King of the Seven Climes: A History of the Ancient Iranian World (3000 BCE–651 CE). Brill.

Deambi, B. K. (1998). Corpus of Śāradā Inscriptions. Agam Kala Prakashan.

Dughlat, M. M. (2022). The Tārīkh-i-Rashīdī (E. Denison Ross, Trans.). Gyan Publishers.

Dutt, J. C. (Trans.). (1986). Rajatarangini of Jonaraja. Gyan Publishing House.

Eaton, R. M. (2000). "Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim states." Journal of Islamic Studies, 11(3), 283–319.

Goetz, H. (2008). Studies in the History and Art of Kashmir and the Indian Himalaya. Jaykay Publishers.

Hamdani, S. (2021). The Syncretic Traditions of Islamic Religious Architecture of Kashmir (Early 14th–18th Century). Routledge.

Hangloo, R. L. (2022). The State in Medieval Kashmir. Routledge.

Joshi, M., & Thakur, V. C. (2016). "Signatures of 1905 Kangra and 1555 Kashmir earthquakes in medieval period temples of Chamba region, Northwest Himalaya." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160155

Kalhaṇa. (2017). Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī: A Chronicle of the Kings of Kashmir (Vol. 1). Motilal Banarsidass.

Lone, S. A. (2024). "Traces of Martand Sun Temple of Kashmir Valley: An architectural study." International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 5(2), 1471–1474.

Mir, S. (2024, March 11). "How Kashmir’s medieval Persian ‘tarikhs’ were mined for modern politics." The Wire. https://m.thewire.in/article/history/how-kashmirs-medieval-persian-tarikhs-were-mined-for-modern-politics/

Ogura, S. (2025). Kashmir: A Cultural Crossroads of the Sanskrit and Persian Cosmopolises (Vol. 2). Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA).

Salomon, R., & Slaje, W. (2016). "Review of Kingship in Kaśmīr (AD 1148–1459). From the pen of Jonarāja, court paṇḍit to Sulṭān Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn." Indo-Iranian Journal, 59(4), 393–401.

Shali, S. L. (1993). Kashmir: History and Archaeology Through the Ages. Indus Publications Co.

Sufi, G. M. D. (2015). Kashīr: Being a History of Kashmir From the Earliest Times to Our Own (Vol. 1). Gulshan Books.

Truschke, A. (2021). The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Muslim Rule. Penguin / Columbia University Press.

Wagoner, P. B., & Davis, R. (2024). "Reuse and iconoclasm in the medieval Deccan: A city-gate and a Sufi shrine at Daulatabad." Archives of Asian Art, 74(2), 197–228.

Wagoner, P. B., & Rice, J. H. (2001). "From Delhi to the Deccan: Newly discovered Tughluq monuments at Warangal-Sultānpur and the beginnings of Indo-Islamic architecture in southern India." Artibus Asiae, 61(1), 77–117.

Wink, A. (2002). Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic Conquest, 11th–13th Centuries (Vol. 3). Brill.

Xuanzang. (1996). The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions (R. Li, Trans.). Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research.

Zutshi, C. (2017, October 24). "This book claims to expose the myths behind Kashmir’s history. It exposes its own biases instead." Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/855050/this-book-claims-to-expose-the-myths-behind-kashmirs-history-it-exposes-its-own-biases-instead