History has forever been viewed as a clash of civilisations, of religions, of nations, of classes ... The tradition of looking at history in India in terms of conflict of religions and sects goes back to hoary days within the fold of the Hindu religion, between the Vaishnavites and the Saivites; between the Hindus and the Jainas and the Buddhists; between Brahminical Hinduism and ethnic groups, derisively referred to as the dasyus, and so forth.

In India's medieval centuries, one important construction of history was in terms of conflict between Islam and kufr. The innumerable instances of the demolition of Buddhist viharas by Hindu rulers, in some cases of Hindu temples by Hindu rulers themselves even  within their own territory, of temples by Muslim rulers, of mosques by some local level Hindu rulers - all these, on one hand, reflect the assertion of state power by the rulers in the form of their religious identity, and on the other, their search for legitimisation in a vision of history.

As a people with history, therefore, we should not be taken by surprise at instances of this nature in any part of our remote past, for this was its language. The problem however, arises from our assumption that this was the past's only language, that the state did nothing else except demolish (places of worship) and subjugate people of other faiths to its own, that historians never viewed history  except as interminable religious clashes organised by the state. It is thus that just about any testimony, textual or archaeological, bearing upon history is immediately constructed as a proof of the state's religious intolerance. (Source: The Hindustan Times, 19 March, 2000)