Now coming to India we find that many of the Turkish Muslim invaders, from Mohammed of Ghazni on, were fanatics. They prided themselves on being bootshikans ard considered idol worship a 'foul and pernicious practice'. Whatever the revisionist Marxist historians may say, they were inspired by religious zeal and considered destruction of viharas and temples of idolatrous Buddhists and Hindus a meritorious act ..

I need not narrate the subsequent story of devastation wrought by the fanatic Muslim Sultans of foreign origin. I recently went through (fcr) a second time A. Fuhrer's "The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-western Provinces and Oudh", and I found it depressing reading ..

.. A large number of educated Hindus have begun to feel strongly that the minority is being pampered and that the majority is being discriminated against. The invocation of the secular ideal and the appeal to reason is becoming less and less effective. The Marxist historians by their 'secular' interpretations of history are only contributing to the irritation of the educated Hindus. Some of them have sought to equate spoliation of religious shrines by rulers belonging to different (non- Muslim) religious sects like Shaivites, Vaishanvites, Buddhists and Jains with the destruction of temples by Muslims Arab and Turkish invaders and Muslim kings. In the case of non-Muslim rulers such spoliation was exceptional and did not attract religious merit. In fact the general public condemned it because of the general belief in the sanctity of religious shrines. Not so in the case of Muslim idol breakers ...                                                                                         (Source: Limaye's Decline of a Political System) (Courtesy: The Organiser)