Praful Goradia Quotes

In 1403 AD Ibrahim Naib Barbak ordered all Hindus to quit the city so that only Muslims could live there.

The new temple was built at the behest of Rani Ahilyabai Holkar long after Aurangzeb's desecration . As already explained by Sherring, all the temples built during the Mohammaden rule in Benares had to be diminutive in size. It transpires that the demolition of temples was not inspired merely by a hatred for idolatory or by greed for loot. It was also driven by a desire to humiliate the Hindus. Or, else, how does one explain that the masjid built by Aurangzeb had to be bang next to the Gyan Vapi or the well of knowledge.

Sherring appreciates that Muslims yearn to visit Mecca and the Christians desire to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem but the Hindu heart goes out to Benares. If the Hindus refer to any one city as their holiest, it is Benares. Yet, Aurangzeb thought it fit to change its name to Muhammadabad. The temple of Bisheswar, who was regarded as king of all the Hindu gods, was systematically demolished by Aurangzeb during the 17th century. The large collection of deities stored on a platform called the court of Mahadev on the northern side of the temple, were found from the debris. As recorded by Sherring, extensive remains of this ancient temple are still visible and they form a large portion of the western wall of the mosque which was built upon its site by the bigoted oppressor. Evidently, the former temple was much larger than the present one, which is really small for so important a shrine. But there was a reason for it.

To paraphrase William Shakespeare, not all the scents of Arabia would suffice to wash away the sins of Ghazni and Alamgir at Mathura. And since it is not possible to claim back what was destroyed long ago, the return of the Idgaah and the shuddhi of Krishnajanmabhoomi or the birth place of Krishna, is the only alternative.

Such then was the vandalism with which the sultanate in Delhi began. As with the Quwwatul Islam masjid next to the Qutb Minar, which was also built by Sultan Aibak, so with Adhai Din Ka Jhopra at Ajmer. Both are indelible specimens of humiliation perpetrated by the victor upon the vanquished.

Mind you, the ASI has done nothing to excavate or salvage anything in the complex since independence. With the passing of the Protection of National Monuments Act, 1951 (see Annexure II), all archaeological activities have been frozen. The credit for the excavations goes to Cunningham and Dr. D R Bhandarkar; during the first half of the 20th century by the latter.

The pillars are some 30 feet high gorgeously carved either with exquisite designs up to a height of about 26 feet, thereafter adorned with delicate figurines . Uncannily, there is not a single figure whose face has not been cut off. Nowhere in Europe does one see such acts of vandalism, except what the original barbarian vandals themselves perpetrated under their king Gaiseric, in the wake of the conquest of Rome in 455AD. Hereafter, the word vandal became synonym with wilful desecration and destruction. The figurines on all the relics on display at the Rajputana Museum as well as those salvaged by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) duly locked in the compound of the Jhopra have been systematically defaced. Amongst the thousands of stone heads, not a single nose or an eye is visible.

The desecration at Mehrauli was probably the first perpetrated by Muhammad Ghauri. It is situated next to the famous Qutb Minar. The masjid was named after its builder, Qutbuddin Aibak, as Quwwatul Islam, which, translated into English, means the Might of Islam. The name itself is arrogant; for a place Of worship it is even more so.

Cunningham called it a masjid which was made up of Hindu materials. It is difficult to agree with Cunningham. The author feels that a Hindu building was converted into a masjid and not made up or rebuilt with Hindu materials. If it had been rebuilt, its Muslim builder would have excluded the inscription of Raja Ajaya as well as all the statuettes on the pillars and walls. The fact that they have been mutilated is a clear indication that the then existing Hindu edifice was quickly converted into a masjid. Apart from the factor of quickness, there must have been the lack of readily available architects and artisans familiar with Islamic architecture. Hence, a great deal of the early Muslim buildings in Hindustan were conversions of Hindu temples. A distinctly Islamic style did not emerge until about the advent of the Lodis in the course of the 15th century.

The Jami masjid at Etawah is an even more interesting example of sweep under the carpet and conceal. In fact, it is more illustrative. Not only is the masjid white-washed, a number of pillars have been subjected to several coats of aluminium paint. This was applied to a surface made smooth perhaps by the use of plaster. The pillars that had white lime on them, were plain granite.

The author prefers to quote either British authorities or Muslim chroniclers so that neither authenticity nor objectivity is questioned. However, before moving on to the next monument, he wishes to iterate that additions and alterations of such historic edifices are still taking place. He was quite put off by the white-washing, however fresh or glistening, that had been done on the granite pillars and ceiling of the Jama masjid. The Makhdum Jahaniya fortunately has not suffered this ugly transformation. On the other hand, the Jami masjid at Etawah, only about a hundred kilometres away, which we visited the previous day, was a lso a casualty of whitewashing. What should be the role of the Archaeological Survey is best answered by its directors and, perhaps, the Ministry of Culture.

Lane Poole's thesis iterates that in most cases, the destruction perpetrated by the invaders on the Hindu capital cities was conclusive enough to see their permanent end. Kannauj is an outstanding example. So was Ujjain, Gaur, the ancient capital of Bengal, and Ajmer. The ruling elites, Rajputs or others, evidently saw no future in a revival and migrated to other areas. Rajputana offered an useful sanctuary because of the Aravalli hills as well as stretches of desert which made defence against Islamic aggression possible. The arrival of Raja Jaichand's grandson in Marwar is an example.

It is strange that what a writer on Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti and the Dargah Sharief at Ajmer has said about the role of Raja Jaichand should have precipitated our visit to Kannauj on August 2, 2001. Equally strange is the fact that our interest in this great capital city of ancient Hindustan was first aroused in 1983 by Dr N .K. Bezbaruah, the versatile grand old man of Assam. He then told us how proud he was to claim direct lineage from one of the chosen Kannauj Brahmins, who were invited specially to introduce Hinduism amongst the Ahoms who had captured power in Assam and had set up their capital city at Sibsagar in the 13th century. Incidentally, the Ahoms belonged to the Shan race whose base was in Thailand. The doctor was bemoaning the paradox of his clan being, on the one hand, so proud of its Hindu ancestry and, on the other, a few sons of the same proud families taking to gun s and terrorism, as it were, against the rest of Hindustan.

The first example of shuddhi that the author came across was the tomb of Sultan Ghari which has an interesting history and a delightful present. If only this example of popular spontaneity can be extended to all the temples converted into mosques, would there not be Hindu-Muslim friendship? Just go any afternoon and see for yourself.

The temple today is 55 feet tall. Before its upper part was destroyed on Aurangzeb's orders in anticipation of his visit to Vrindavan in 1670 AD, the mandir was reputed to be twice that height. On its roof, after the destruction, a mehrab or prayer wall was erected and the iconoclastic emperor offered namaaz. Almost two centuries later, F.S. Growse, who belonged to the Bengal Civil Service and was Collector of Mathura District, had the mehrab removed. First, because it was an eyesore, and second, in an endeavour to redeem whatever character was left of the temple. Although the original idol remained at Jaipur, another set of deities was installed by the pujaris or priests. Since then, the temple has a flat roof. Probably, no other desecrated temple had been the subject of so much repair and refurbishment by British rulers. Of supreme importance was the fact of the mandir being restituted to Hindu devotees. It was the greatest act of shuddhi or purification although performed before Swami Dayanand Saraswati reintroduced Vedic procedures.... The Gobind Dev temple at Vrindavan, Mathura, is indeed massive its plinth is 105 feet by 117 feet. It is estimated that the original height was about 110 feet without which it would not have been possible to see the mashaal or torch either from Agra or from Delhi. The temple was built in 1590 AD by Maharaja Mansingh of Jaipur.