Abstract
Recent articles on temple desecration in pre-modern India and Indo-Muslim states by Richard M. Eaton published in Frontlilne have contributed to the popular Western narratives about India and Indian history. There are many contested areas, misunderstandings and misinterpretations in Eaton’s deliberations on the problem arising out of the conventional historiographic method. Here, an attempt has been made to critically review some of the arguments of Eaton on temple desecration in pre-modern India in a wider methodological perspective, that is, beyond historiography. The historiographic evidence alone in interpreting Indian history may not be enough in view of the complexity of Indian situation, thus necessitating validation of historiography by careful application of contemporary ethnological evidence, circumstantial material evidence and specific Indian contextual situation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
