And then, the student is asked: ‘In what ways do you think the policies of Rajendra I and Mahmud of Ghazni were a product of their times? How were the actions of the two rulers different?’

Now, I have to tell my daughters to ponder over the question.

Rajendra Chola never had with him a chronicler who would praise him for looting any temple or monastery even in the enemy territory.

Of course, when rival Hindu kings wanted to charge each other, they alleged that the other king attacked the temples and monasteries which the accused king had to refute.

In the case of Mahmud of Ghazni, his court chronicler praised him for destroying the temples. That was the first difference I told my daughters.

I pointed out that the Sri Lankan general was able to take back the Buddha statue made of gold from Madurai — almost after a generation.

What did this mean? It meant that the idols were installed and worshipped here and not made part of the doorsteps of Hindu temples.

Every idol brought by Chola from his expedition was installed in the temple and worshipped.

They were not mutilated and made part of the doorsteps of the worshipping place of the Cholas.

Then there is the history of Kulothunga Chola.

Even as the Cholas derived pleasure calling themselves Maduranthakas (destroyers of Madura), Kulothunga gave all the tributes he received after conquering Madurai back to the Madurai temple itself — thus through the temple to the people.

Thus, temples served as a moderating influence on the conquerors.

That was not the case with Mahmud of Ghazni.

At the end of the day, we need to look at the textbook. Notice how carefully Islamic preaching has been carried out in the textbook.

With no parental intervention and with a strongly Nehruvian pro-Islamic training in teaching, the school curriculum itself becomes a proselytizing tool — if not open conversion, it creates the mental atmosphere in which the student, when grown up, shall find no worth in Hinduism and all things positive in Islam.

The textbook goes beyond negation of Hindu Holocaust. It has become a manual of instruction on Islamic ‘superiority’ over Hindu religion and culture.

And they have never changed a single line.