Source: TW
Eminent historians @aravindgov & @Ravilochanan86 argued with me fervently yesterday that the Thiruvannamalai Shiva temple worship were restored by Raghunath Pant & below is the source. This was ‘corroborated’ by a French translation book which says the temple was ‘demolished’ & converted into another place of worship, …Thiruvannamalai is one of the big temples in TN & has kept records continuously. There was no record of such ‘demolishing’ & reconstruction. The architecture evidence also clearly points out that it is not the case. …Does it mean the Durbar records quoted below is not true. I never said that. The entire thing is based on the assumption ‘Shonachalapathi’ is Thiruvannamalai main temple. That may not be true. There are many shrines around the Hill including a temple called as ‘Adi Annamalai’ temple.
Now we are entering the phase of special pleadings. The text doesn’t say ‘Adi’ Annamalai temple or any insignificant small temple in the town. The list gives 4 temples - all of which are very significant Hindu temple. Vriddhacalam, Srimushnam and Chidambaram are the other 3.
The issue started because @tskrishnan called RVK by the Amatya as an obscure book - a very illogical and completely wrong stance. That was the prime issue which forced us to correct his position.
His next argument was that we can’t accept this if no inscriptions are available. So we pointed out that many such historical instances have been accepted by scholars in general, incl @tskrishnan, using literary evidence alone.
Now, the only remaining argument is that temple records supposedly don’t mention about what RVK says. Let’s look at it RCK doesn’t say that the Amatya rebuilt the temple. He reconsecrated it (kumbhabhishekam). He says that the temple was in a state of destruction - which is a reference to desecration of garbhagrha & no pujas being done. Restarting of worship also happened at 3 other temples.
Temple records do not mention every such happening. Record keeping is not accurate either. Even Koil ozhugu of Srirangam (perhaps the most elaborate records) doesn’t give all details wrt the temple. Let’s take Azhagar Kovil as example. Hyders invasion resulted in desecration. The temple was looted. Several shrines including that of Vedanta Desika and a sub shrine for Shiva were destroyed. The main temple was reconsecrated after this event. No commemoration of this event occurs in Azhagar Kovil. Lack of such records & commemoration dont matter.
Back to the arguments, when pointed out that there is no contemporary record about Arikesari’s conversion, made a false claim abt Ilayanputhur plates mentioning it. That had exacerbated the argument yesterday.
Let’s get back to the specific issue of Arunachalam. Pillai has recorded the desecration and reconsecration of Tiruvannamalai temple. As for the claim about the temple being converted into a mosque, there is indeed no direct architectural evidence for that. Maybe the desecrated temple was used for namaz by some Muslims troops. We see that agraharams and temples were misused in this fashion during the Madurai Sultanate as recorded by Ganga Devi. Back to Pillai, he mentions that it was not just Arunachala temple, a Vishnu temple of TV malai was also reconsecrated by Shivaji. In essence, the desecrated temple was reconsecrated and restored by Shivaji. Islamic occupation of temple didn’t result in major architectural changes. Some superficial changes might HV occurred which were cleared during reconsecration.
Interestingly, Pillai records that Vishnu Murti was consecrated within precincts of Shiva temple by Marathas. This is not mentioned in RVK by the Amatya. This requires further study. Such changes HV happened in other places as well - Kanchi & Perur being well known examples.
Pillai also records that Marathas did reconsecration in many temples in this region - wherever temples had been made into/used as mosques. This act of conversion is recorded by contemporary Europeans as well.
RVK records that the reconsecration happened in arunachaleswara temple. It says the same about Srimushnam, Vriddhachalam & Chidambaram as well. As a contemporary record of the Amatya who was also a guv of this region then, we see no reason to hold these claims to be lies. That Pillai, who was not a Maratha panegyrist, also records something similar corroborates this claim made by the Amatya.
If @tskrishnan still wants to be obstinate, that is his problem. Marathas (other than Tanjore clan) hv left very few inscriptions. But durbar docs r avl. Just like Mughal history, Maratha history is established through the voluminous docs left behind by them - letters, durbar docs, bakhars etc. These contemporary records are of great historical value and are considered to be factual. To dismiss them as obscure is unacceptable.
Pillai specifically confirms about Tiruvannamalai of the 4 temples and points out that Marathas did reconsecration of many temples in this region supporting the Amatyas statement. Exaggerated claims abt impaling Jains don’t disprove Arikesari’s conversion. Use same yardstick here.