# Jonaraja

Jonaraja (died AD 1459) was a Kashmiri historian and Sanskrit poet. His Dvitīyā Rājataraṅginī is a continuation of Kalhana's Rājataraṅginī and brings the chronicle of the kings of Kashmir down to the time of the author's patron Zain-ul-Abidin (r. 1418–1419 and 1420–1470). Jonaraja, however, could not complete the history of the patron as he died in the 35th regnal year. His pupil, Śrīvara continued the history and his work, the Tritīyā Rājataraṅginī, covers the period 1459–1486.

## Quotes

* With the Vedas, the six appendices, with the Pada and Krama (texts), with Vedånta and Siddhånta, logic and grammar, Purana recitation, with (Tantric) Mantras and the six traditional sects ... with its masses of Puranic, Vedic (śruti) and logic disciplines (tarkaśåstra), and, moreover, marked by Agnihotrins, with Brahmins devoted to meditation, asceticism, recitation and so on, and zealeaously engaged with ablutions, worship, and the like, ... the land of Kashmir is the best.
** Rajataranginī of Jonaraja, B 747
* The kingdom of Kashmira was polluted by the evil practices of the mlechchhas, and the Brahmanas, the mantras, and the gods relinquished their power. The gods who used to make the glory of their prowess manifest, even as fire-flies manifest their light, now hid their glory on account of the county’s sin. When the gods withdrew their glory, their images became mere stones, and the mantras, mere letters... Suhabhatta who disregarded the acts enjoined by the Vedas, was instructed by the mlechchhas, instigated the king to break down the images of the gods... the king forgot his kingly duties and took a delight, day and night, in breaking images... He broke the images of Marttanda, Vishaya, Ishana, Chakrabhrit, and Tripureshvara; but what can be said of the evil that came on him by the breaking of the Shesha? ... There was no city, no town, no village, no wood, where Suha the Turushka left the temples of gods unbroken. Of the images which once had existed, the name alone was left, and Suhabhatta then felt the satisfaction which one feels on recovering from illness.
** (Jonaraja 1986: 59-60). in Jain, M. (2019). Flight of deities and rebirth of temples: Espisodes from Indian history. 51-55
* Or take the case of Suhabhatta, the chief minister of Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir (1389-1413 AD). Suhabhatta who had renounced his ancestral faith for Islam is known as Suha in the Rajataringini of Jonaraja. This historian of Kashmir records: “Instructed by mlechhas, (Suha) instigated the king to break down the images of Gods. The king forgot his kingly duties and took a delight day and night in breaking images… He broke the images of Martanda, Vishaya, Isana, Chakravarati and Tripuresvara… There was no city, no town, no village, no wood where Suha and the Turushka left the temples of Gods unbroken.
** Jonraja, quoted in Sita Ram Goel: The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India.
* The ancient temple of Varaha which seems to have been one of the most famous shrines of Kasmlr, is repeatedly mentioned by Kalhana. According to the tradition of the local Purohitas it stood near the site of the present Kotitirtha, at the western extremity of the town and close to the river-bank. Some ancient Lirigas and sculptures found at the Kotitirtha may have originally belonged to the temple. The destruction of its sacred image is noted by Jonaraja in the reign of Sikandar Butshikast.
** Kalhana's Rajatarangini Vol 2 , by Marc Aurel Stein
* Sikandar’s reign marks a turning-point in the history of Kashmir from social and religious point of view. It appears that although the rulers were Muslims the State was hitherto predominantly Hindu, and even the Muslim kings and peoples were not very orthodox in their belief. This is proved, among other things, by the Hindu names like Lakshmi and Sobha borne by the queens, consecration of a golden liiga by the latter (v. 671), and the performance of a yajna (sacrifice) by Qutb-ud-din to avert famine (v. 637). This. was probably due to the paucity of Muslims in the country. But a great change took place during the reign of Sikandar. A large immigration of Muslims from outside flooded the country, and there seems to be little doubt that they brought with them that fanatic iconoclastic zeal which distinguished Islam in other parts of India, but from which Kashmir was happily free up to this time. This follows from the detailed account of Jonaraja from which the following extracts are quoted: “The king had a fondness for the Yavanas..... Many Yavanas. left other sovereigns and took shelter under this king who was renowned for charity. Muhammada of Mera country became theit (that is, of the Yavanas) chief. The king waited on him daily, humble as a servant, and like a student he daily took his lessons from him. He placed Muhammada before him, and was attentive to him like a slave. As the wind destroys the trees, and the locusts the sali crop, so did the Yavanas destroy the usages of Kasmira. Attracted by the gifts and honours which the king bestowed, and by his kindness, the mlechchhas entered Kasmira even as locusts enter a good field of corn.” They occupied all the offices of the State and became friends of the king. Sikandar evidently learnt his lessons well, and his reign was disgraced by a series of acts, inspired by religious bigotry and iconoclastic zeal, for which there is hardly any parallel even in the annals of the Muslim rulers of India. His minister, Sihabhatta, who had abjured Hindu faith for Islam, and was “instructed by the mlechchhas, instigated the king io break down the images of gods”. Whether the king required any such instigation after the lessons. he had learnt at the feet of Muhammada of Mera, cannot be definitely said. In any case there cannot be any doubt that Sthabhatta’s advice fell on willing ears. The result is thus described by Jonaraja: ‘The king forgot his kingly duties and took a delight day and night, in breaking images.......... He broke the images of Martanda, Vishaya, Isana, Chakrabhrit and Tripuresvara......... There was no city, no town, no village, no wood where Sitha the Turushka left the temples of gods unbroken.” But this was not all. An attempt was made to destroy the caste of the Brahmanas by force, and those who resisted it were subjected to heavy fines. The Muslim version of the activities of Sikandar is given in detail by Firishta who, of course, includes them among his “good institutions”. According to Firishta, Sikandar issued ‘‘orders proscribing the residence of any person other than Muhammadans in Kashmir; and he required that no man should wear the mark on his forehead, or any woman be permitted to burn with her husband’s corpse. Lastly, he insisted on all the golden and silver images being broken and melted down, and the metal coined into money”’.*24 No one can fail to be struck with the contrast between Kashmir under Shihab-ud-din and Sikandar and note that much water had flown down the Vitasta during a quarter of acentury. Firishta continues: “Many of the Brahmins, rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Muhammadans. After the emigration of the Brahmins, Sikandar ordered all the temples in Kashmir to be thrown down’. Some temples were levelled with the ground, and in one case, we are told that Sikandar, who was personally present, did not desist till the building was entirely razed to the ground, and its foundations dug up. The Muslim historians inform us that for having broken the Hindu temples Sikandar got the title of Butshikan, or the destroyer of idols. Immediately after this Firishta remarks: “Among other good institutions of Sikandar was the prohibition of vending wine, and the relinquishment of all export duties’’. It has been urged by some that it was not the Sultan but Sihabhatta and other converts who were responsible for the religious persecution.?! But, as Jonaraja has observed in this connection, it is an established rule, that the master is responsible for the fault of his servant.°2 Besides, the account of Firishta, quoted above, makes it clear that Sikandar was not as innocent in the matter as is pretended by his supporters, for he personally supervised the demolition of temples and, in at least one case, he was not satisfied by merely razing a temple to the ground, but saw to it that its foundations were dug up. This one instance, if true, is sufficient to prove his personal zeal and bigotry. After all, it was not Suhabhatta but Sikandar who was honoured by his co-religionists with the sobriquet Butshikan (destroyer of idols). (377-379)
* The History and Culture of the Indian People Volume 6: The Delhi Sultanate [1300-1526]
* Jonaraja gives more details. He begins by saying that while Sikandar put some limits to the persecution of the Hindus, tnese were now exceeded and there was no restraint. What he probably means is that, while the religious bigotry in the preceding reign took the forms mainly of destroying temples and demolishing the images of gods, Sthabhatta now more violently persecuted the Brahmanas. He imposed a fine or inflicted punishment (danda) on the Brahmanas and forbade religious sacrifices and processions (yoga-yatradi). Lest the Brahmanas leave the country to avoid the oppression and maintain their caste, orders were issued that no one might leave Kashmir without a passport, so that Sihabhatta might torment the Brahmanas as a fisherman torments the fish after putting them in a net in river. In spite of the regulation, some left the country by unfrequented roads. As to the rest, some tried to save themselves by putting on Muslim dress, while others put an end to their lives by fire, poison, drowning, hanging and jumping from a precipice. In order to put a stop to Hindu learning, Suhabhatta stopped the allowances of the Brahmanas, who had to move from door to door, like dogs, for food. It is interesting to note that Sthabhatta maintained that all these he did out of his regard for Islamic faith, and not out of any malice towards the Brahmanas (vv. 863-81).
** Majumdar R. C., editor. The History and Culture of the Indian People The Delhi Sultanate. 4. ed. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
* Jonraj, a contemporary historian, has delineated a graphic picture of Kashmir marauded by Zul Qadar Khan's army. Records he, "Kashmir presented pitiful spectacle. Father sundered from his son wailed and moaned. Brother got separated from his brother, never to meet again.... depopulated, uncultivated grainless and gramineous, the country of Kashmir offered, as it were, the scenario of primal chaos" .
* In his second Rajtarangini, the historian Jonraj has recorded, "There was no city, no town, no village, no wood, where the temples of the gods were unbroken. When Sureshavari, varaha and others were broken, the world trembled, but not so the mind of the wicked king. He forgot his kingly duties and took delight day and night in breaking images."
* “He (Suhabhatta) killed and tortured Brahmins not out of any malice or hatred towards them. It was just out of his devotion towards Turuskadarsana, the philosophy of Islam, that he killed them and that got him no feeling of committing the sin of murder.”... “As a storm uproots trees and locusts devastate a crop of rice, the lived life, the way of life that identified Kashmir was destroyed by Yavanas — the Muslims.”... Like a “child eating non-food items like clay and mud, Suhabhatta, with his aides indulged in jatividhvams, that is genocide of people.”... “The Brahmins said that they shall die if their jati is destroyed, that means they are converted to Islam. They were told that if they want to keep their jati they should pay the fine, that is Jaziya.”
** Rajatarangini by Jonaraja quoted at Sunanda Vashisht, What Did Muslim Sultan And Hindu King Of Kashmir Have In Common — They Were Both Turuksha