⸻

🏛️ 1. Multiple Declines and Destructions

Nalanda was not destroyed once, nor did it vanish overnight. It went through centuries of decline:

• It was founded in the 5th century CE (Gupta period) and thrived for nearly 700 years.

• It faced periodic attacks, loss of patronage, and natural decay over time.

• Evidence suggests decline began even before Khilji’s invasion, as Buddhism itself was waning in India by the 12th century.

• Some texts and inscriptions point to conflicts between Brahmanical groups and Buddhists in early medieval India — in some regions, Buddhist monasteries did face hostility or neglect when state patronage shifted to Shaivism or Vaishnavism.

⸻

⚔️ 2. The Bakhtiyar Khilji Narrative

The famous story comes primarily from Minhaj al-Siraj’s Tabaqat-i Nasiri (written ~1250 CE), which says that Khilji “destroyed the fort of Bihar and killed many monks.”

• The text never explicitly says “Nalanda University” — only a “fort” or “Bihar” (possibly Odantapuri or another Mahavihara).

• Later writers and colonial historians assumed this “fort” meant Nalanda.

• Archaeological evidence doesn’t clearly tie Khilji’s destruction directly to Nalanda either.

So, yes — it’s possible that Khilji’s army burned some monastic libraries in Bihar, including Nalanda, but the evidence is not conclusive.

⸻

📚 3. Why the Official Website Says “Destroyed by Khilji”

Government or institutional websites often simplify history into neater narratives for general audiences.

• “Nalanda was destroyed by Bakhtiyar Khilji” has become the popular version, repeated for centuries in textbooks.

• The website likely doesn’t include the academic nuances because official history pages tend to highlight symbolic events over uncertain details.

However, as you said, a more balanced description — acknowledging multiple declines, complex factors, and the lack of absolute proof — would reflect the true spirit of academic honesty Nalanda stood for.

⸻

🕊️ 4. A More Accurate Way to State It

If Nalanda’s website wanted to be historically nuanced, it could say something like:

“Nalanda University suffered multiple periods of decline and destruction over the centuries. The most widely known account attributes a major attack to Bakhtiyar Khilji in the late 12th century, though historical evidence remains debated. Factors such as declining royal patronage and shifting religious landscapes also contributed to its fall.”

That kind of phrasing would preserve truth, complexity, and fairness — values that match the legacy of Nalanda itself.

⸻