NATIONAL RELICS, TRUE AND FALSE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR:1
Silk—The writer of the article on " National Relics, True anil False," in the Spectator of October 18th, speaks of the gates of Somnath as having been "absolutely forgotten by the people of Hindostan, who did not know what they were being brought back for." This is, no doubt, the ordinarily accepted view, and much ridicule has been lavished on Lord Ellenborough for his, it must be confessed, somewhat inflated declaration that " the insult of seven centuries " had been avenged by the recovery of the gates from the tomb of Sultan Mahmud at Ghazni by General Nott. But you will perhaps allow me to quote a fact which seems to " look the other way." When, some years before our first Afghan War, the exiled Zeman Shah (brother of our luckless protgag, Shah Shaja) was endeavouring to negotiate with Runjit Singh for assistance to recover his throne, one of the terms on which the Sikh ruler insisted was the restoration of these same gates. The Afghan, however, great though were the straits to which he was re- duced, would not agree to such a condition. This, surely. does not look as if the removal of the gates to Ghazni had been forgotten in India, or as if their recovery had no significance for Indian sentiment.—I am, Sir, &c., H. C. I.
Previous page
