HIND KISHAN MAZDOOR PARTY & HIND KISHAN SANGTHAN: Sonia Maino, the alien, non-Hindu widow of the lat...

HIND KISHAN MAZDOOR PARTY & HIND KISHAN SANGTHAN: Sonia Maino, the alien, non-Hindu widow of the lat...: A Visit to Sonia Gandhi's Birth Place; Yes, I am speaking here of Sonia Maino, the alien, non-Hindu widow of the late Rajiv Roberto Gand...

theology of ielam based upon SUNNAH OF PROPHET MARXISTS POLITICIANS MASQUERADING SELLING FAR FETCHED FANTASTIC APOLOGIES FOR HAVOC CREATED BY ISLAMIC ICONOCLASM

THE MARXIST HISTORIANS

What was uncovered at Sidhpur only to be covered up again was verily the tip of an iceberg which remains submerged in hundreds of histories written by Muslim historians, in Hindu literary sources which are slowly coming to light, in the accounts of foreign travellers who visited India and the neighbouring lands during medieval and modern times, and above all in the reports of the archaeological surveys carried out in all those countries which had been for long the cradles of Hindu culture. No systematic effort has yet been made by scholars to see the iceberg emerge from the dark depths and tell its own story in a simple and straight-forward manner. Rare is the historian or archaeologist who had related this vandalism to the theology of Islam based on the Qur’ãn and the Sunnah of the Prophet. On the contrary, the subject has been politicised by the votaries of Secularism who become hysterical by the very mention of the untold story. Politicians in power have made and are making frantic efforts to suppress every tip of the iceberg which chances to surface in spite, of the conspiracy to keep it out of sight.

Some of these politicians are masquerading as academicians and selling far-fetched and fantastic apologies for the havoc caused by Islamic iconoclasm. The following story illustrates what happens whenever the subject comes into the open and invites attention.

One day in August, 1986, The Times of India printed on its front page the photographs of two stones carrying defaced carvings of some Hindu deities. There was a short statement beneath the photographs that the stones had been found by the Archaeological Survey of India in course of repairs to the Qutb Mînãr at Delhi. The stones, according to the Survey, had been built into a wall with the carved faces turned inwards.  But the daily had dropped this part of the news.

Some correspondence cropped up in the letters-to-the-editor column of the newspaper. The majority of writers congratulated the editor for breaking a conspiracy of silence regarding publication of a certain type of historical facts in the mass media. A few writers regretted that a news item like that should have been published in a prestigious daily in an atmosphere of growing communal tension. None of the writers raised the question or speculated as to how those stones happened to be there. None of them drew any inference from the fact that the Qutb Mînãr stands near the Quwwat al-Islãm Masjid which, according to an inscription on its eastern gate, was built from the materials of twenty-seven Hindu temples.

The correspondence would have closed after a few days but for another photograph which was front-paged by The Times of India dated September 15, 1986.  It depicted the Îdgãh built by Aurangzeb on the site of the Kešavadeva temple at Mathura and gave the news that a committee had been formed by some leading citizens for the liberation of what is known to be Šrî KrishNa’s place of birth. A few more letters for and against the photograph and the news item were published in the newspaper. None of them was well-informed. None of them threw any light on what was the Kešvadeva temple and why and when Aurangzeb converted it into a mosque.

But even these meagre and ill-informed comments were too much for a dozen professors from Delhi. They wrote a long letter of protest which was published in The Times of India on October 2, 1986. The letter is being reproduced in full because it reveals the line laid down by a well-entrenched clique which has come to control all institutions concerned with the researching, writing and teaching of history in this country. They said:

“Sir-We have noted with growing concern a recent tendency in The Times of India to give a communal twist to news items and even to editorial comments. An example of this is a report from Mathura dated 15 September and entitled, ‘Krishna’s Birthplace after Aurangzeb.’ It evoked considerable correspondence some of which, as could be expected, was markedly communal in tone.

“Your readers should know that historical analysis and interpretations involve more than a mere listing of dates with an eye to pious sentiments. The Dera Keshava Rai temple was built by Raja Bir Singh Deo Bundela during Jahangir’s reign. This large temple soon became extremely popular and acquired considerable wealth. Aurangzeb had this temple destroyed, took the wealth as booty and built an Idgah on the site. His actions might have been politically motivated as well, for at the time when the temple was destroyed he faced problems with the Bundelas as well as Jat rebellions in the Mathura region. It should be remembered that many Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzeb’s reign and even some new ones built. Indeed, what is really required is an investigation into the theory that both the Dera Keshava Rai temple and the Idgah were built on the site of a Buddhist monastery which appears to have been destroyed.

“Your news report also gives credence to the suggestion that this site was the birthplace of Krishna. This is extraordinary to say the least, when even the historicity of the personality is in question. It creates the kind of confusion such as has been created, probably deliberately, over the question of the birthplace of Rama in the matter of the Ramajanam-bhumi. A Persian text of the mid-nineteenth century states that the Babari mosque was adjacent to the Sita-ka-rasoi-ghar and was known as the Rasoi-Sita mosque and adjoined the area associated with the birthplace of Rama. It would be worth enquiring whether there is reliable historical evidence of a period prior to the nineteenth century for this association of a precise location for the birthplace of Rama. Furthermore such disputes as there were between Hindus and Muslims in this area upto the nineteenth century were not over the Babari mosque but the totally different site of Hanuman-baithak.

“It cannot be denied that acts of intolerance have been committed in India by followers of all religions. But these acts have to be understood in their context. It is a debasement of history to distort these events for present day communal propaganda.

“The statement in your news report that the site at Mathura is to be ‘liberated’ and handed over to the ‘rightful owners’ as the birthplace of Krishna raises the question of the limits to the logic of restoration of religious sites (and this includes the demand for the restoration to worshippers of disused mosques now under the care of the Archaeological Survey of India). How far back do we go? Can we push this to the restoration of Buddhist and Jaina monuments destroyed by Hindus? Or of pre-Hindu animist shrines?”

The letter was signed by Romila Thapar, Muzaffar Alam, Bipan Chandra, R. Champaka Lakshmi, S. Bhattacharya, H. Mukhia, Suvira Jaiswal, S. Ratnagar, M.K. Palat, Satish Saberwal, S. Gopal and Mridula Mukherjee. Most of them are minor fries who merely lent their names to the protest letter. But four of them, namely, Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, H. Mukhia and S. Gopal are well-known as Marxist historians. It is for future scholarship to judge the worth of their work in the field of historical research.  What is relevant to our present purpose is that the prestige which they have come to enjoy in our times, succeeded in suppressing what might have been an informative and interesting debate in The Times of India.

Quite a few readers of The Times of India including several professors of equal rank wrote letters challenging the facts as well as the logic of the Marxist professors. But none of these letters was published in the letters-to-the-editor column of the newspaper. After a fortnight, the daily published some nondescript letters from its lay readers and announced that the “controversy has been closed”. It was a curious statement, to say the least. The controversy had only started with the publication of the long letter from the Marxist professors, accusing The Times of India of spreading “communalism” and making a number of sweeping statements. The other side was waiting for its rejoinders to appear in print. The Times of India would have been only fair to itself and its readers to let the other side have its say. But it developed cold feet. Perhaps it was not prepared to get branded as “communalist” for the sake of “a few facts from the dead past.” Perhaps it was in a hurry to retrieve its reputation which had been “compromised” by the publication of the “controversial photographs.” Whatever the reason or calculation, the Marxist professors walked away with victory in a match which the other side was not permitted to contest, leaving an impression on the readers of the newspaper that the Marxist case was unassailable.

It would, therefore, be worthwhile to examine the Marxist case and find out if it has any worth.  Incidentally, the Marxist historians have equipped the Muslim historians as well with what is now considered to be a fool-proof apologetics vis-a-vis the destruction of Hindu temples during Muslim rule in India. An examination of the Marxist case in this context, therefore, constitutes an examination of the Muslim case as well.

We are leaving aside die Marxist accusation of “communalism” against The Times of India. Marxist of all hues have a strong nose for smelling communalism in the faintest expression of Indian nationalism which they have fought with great vigour and vigilance ever since they appeared on the Indian scene in the twenties of this century. Their writings and doings during nearly seven decades testify to the type of patriotism they preach and practise.

We are also overlooking the ex-cathedra tone which characterises their pronouncements regarding interpretation of history. The tone comes quite easily to those who have enjoyed power and prestige for long and, therefore, begun to believe that they have a monopoly over truth and wisdom. We shall confine our examination to what they have stated as facts and what they claim to be the correct interpretations of those facts.
 

The Kešavadeva Tradition at Mathura

It is true that the temple of Kešavadeva which was destroyed and replaced with an Îdgãh by Aurangzeb, was built by Bir Singh Deva Bundela in the reign of Jahãngîr. But he had not built it on a site of his own choosing. An age-old tradition¹ had continued to identify the KaTrã mound (on which Aurangzeb’s Îdgãh stands at present) with the spot where KaMsa had imprisoned the parents of Šrî KrishNa, and where the latter was born. The same tradition had also remembered with anguish that an earlier Kešavadeva temple which stood on this spot had been destroyed by an earlier Islamic iconoclast.

Romila Thapar has herself testified to this tradition about Kešavadeva. Referring to descriptions of the Mathura region by Greek historians, she writes, “The identification of Sourasenoi, Methora and Iobares/Jomanes do not present any problem. But the identification of Cleisobora or Carisobora or the other variants suggested such as Carysobores remain uncertain.... The reading of Cleisobora as KRSNpura has not yielded any firm identification. A possible connection could be suggested with Keshavadeva on the basis of this being an alternative name for KRSNa and there being archaeological evidence of a settlement at the site of Keshavadeva during the Mauryan period.”²

Dr. V.S. Agrawala is well-known for his study of the sculptures and inscriptions found on the ancient sites of Mathura and around. He was Curator of the museum at Mathura as well as that at Lucknow. He makes the following observations:

1. “Mathurã on the Yamunã is famous as the birthplace of KRishNa. It was the scat of the Bhãgvata religion from about second century BC to fifth Century AD…³

2. “Brãhmanical shrines of Mathurã began to be built quite early as shown by the discovery of an epigraph, viz. the Morã Well-Inscription as well as other records like the lintel of the time of ŠoDãsa. It was in the reign of Chandragupta Vikramãditya that a magnificent temple of VishNu was built at the site of KaTrã Kešavadeva… ⁴

3. “The rich store of Brãhmanical images in Mathurã Museum is specially noteworthy. The formulation of these images was a natural result of the strong Bhãgavata movement of which Mathurã had been the radiating centre from about the first century BC… The chronological priority in the making of Brãhmanical images to that of the Buddha should be taken as a settled fact on the basis of an image of Balarãma from JãnsuTî village. It is definitely in the style of the Šuñga period. Patañjali also writing in the same age informs us of the existence of shrines dedicated of Rãma and Kešava i.e., Balarãma and KrishNa…”⁵

An inscription of Svãmî MahãkSatrapa ŠoDãsa recovered by Pandit Radha Krishna in 1913 testifies that a temple dedicated to Vãsudeva existed at Mathura in the first century BC. “From an examination of the stone,” writes Professor H. Luders, “Mr. Ram Prasad Chanda came to the conclusion, which undoubtedly is correct, that the epigraph was originally incised on a square pillar which was afterwards cut lengthwise through the inscribed side into two halves and turned into door jambs.”⁶ Scholars have differed regarding the location of the temple mentioned in the epigraph. The latest to study and interpret the inscriptions of ŠoDãsa is Professor R.C. Sharma. “Luders thought,” he writes, “that it belonged to the Bhãgvata shrine of Morã about 12 kms to the west of Mathurã. But V.S. Agrawala opined that it must have originated from the site of KaTrã, the famous Bhãgvata spot. We shall see that the conjecture of Agrawala carries weight… The upper part of the inscription is corroded and five lines cannot be made out properly. The remaining part is better preserved and it can be translated as: ‘At the great temple of Lord Vãsudeva, a gateway and a railing was erected by Vasu son of Kaušiki Pãkšakã. May Lord Vãsudeva be pleased and promote the welfare of Svãmî Mahãksatrapa ŠoDãsa.’ This is the earliest archaeological evidence to prove the tradition of the building of KRSNa’s shrine.”⁷ It is possible that some more inscriptions may surface in future and take the tradition of KrishNa-worship at Mathura still farther in the past.

Another inscription found at the same site points to the same tradition prevailing in the seventh and eighth centuries AD. “A fragment of an inscribed stone slab,” writes Dr. D.C. Sircar, “was discovered in 1954 at Katra Keshavdev within Mathurã city, headquarters of the District of that name in Uttar Pradesh. It was presented by the Shri Krishna Janmabhumi Trust, Mathurã, to the local Archaeological Museum.” After describing the size of the slab and the style of writing that has survived on it, he continues, “The characters resemble those of such inscriptions of the seventh and eighth centuries belonging to the Western parts of Northern India as the Banskhera plate of Harsh (AD 606-47), the Kundesvar inscription (vs 718 = AD 661) of Aprajita, the Jhalarpatan inscription (vs 746 = AD 689) of DurgagaNa, the Kudarkot inscription of about the second half of the seventh century, the Nagar inscription (vs 741 = AD 684) of Dhanika, and the Kanaswa inscription (vs 795 = AD 738) of ŠivagaNa.”⁸ The inscription was composed “in adoration of a god whose epithets kãl-ãñjana-rajah-puñja-dyuti, (ma)hãvarãha-rûpa and jañgama have only been preserved”. It leaves “no doubt that the reference is to the god VishNu since the expression mahãvarãha-rûpa certainty speaks of the Boar incarnation of the deity.”⁹ The hero of the prašasti is a king named DiNDirãja of the Maurya dynasty. “It therefore seems,” concludes Dr. Sircar, “that the king performed the deed in question in the chain of many other pious works and at the cost of a large sum of money. The purpose seems to have been to put garlands around the head of a deity whose name seems to read Šauri (i.e. VishNu; cf. the Vaishnavite adoration in verse 1).”¹⁰

That Bir Singh Dev Bundela’s choice of the site was not arbitrary is proved by another inscription discovered by Dr. A. Fuhrer in 1889 “from the excavations made by railway contractors at the Kešava mound.”¹¹ It is a long prašasti in Sanskrit stating that “Jajja, who long carried the burden of the varga together with the committee of trustees (gosThîjana) built a large temple of VishNu brilliantly white and touching the clouds.”¹² The colophon in prose informs us that the prašasti was composed by “two ‘wise’ men, Pãla and Kuladdhara (?)” and “incised by the mason Somala in SaMvat 1207 on the full moon day of Kãrttika, during the reign of his glorious majesty, the supreme king of kings, Vijayapãla.” The king cannot be identified with certainty. But SaMvat 1207 corresponds to AD 1149-51. “This king,” concludes the epigraphist, “certainly was the ruler of Mathurã at this period, and Jajja was one of his vassals. This much is absolutely certain, and the inscription also settles the date of at least one of the temples buried under the Kešava mound.”¹³
 

Why Aurangzeb Destroyed the Temple

There is no substance in the Marxist statement that the temple was destroyed because it had “acquired considerable wealth” which attracted Aurangzeb’s greed for booty or that the destruction of the temple was “politically motivated as well, for at the time when the temple was destroyed he faced problems with the Bundela as well as the Jat rebellions in the Mathura region.” We have only to refer to contemporary records to see how these explanations are wide of the mark.

The temple of Kešavadeva was destroyed in January, 1670. This was done in obedience to an imperial firmãn proclaimed by Aurangzeb on April 9, 1669.  On that date, according to Ma’sîr-i-Ãlamgîrî, “The Emperor ordered the governors of all provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teaching and religious practices.”¹⁴ Jadunath Sarkar has cited several sources regarding the subsequent destruction of temples which went on all over the country, and right up to January 1705, two years before Aurangzeb died.¹⁵

None of the instances cited by him make any reference whatsoever to booty or the political problem of rebellion. The sole motive that stands out in every case is religious zeal. Our Marxist professors will find it very hard, if not impossible, to discover economic and/or political motives for all these instances of temple destruction. The alibis that they have invented in defence of Aurangzeb’s destruction of the Kešavadeva temple are, therefore, only plausible, if not downright fraudulent. It is difficult to believe that the learned professors did not know of Aurangzeb’s firmãn dated April 9, 1669 and the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples that followed. If they did not, one wonders what sort of professors they are, and by what right they pronounce pontifically on this subject.
 

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

The veneer of plausibility also comes off when we look into the chronology of Hindu rebellions in the Mathura region. We find no evidence that Aurangzeb was faced with any Hindu rebellion in that region when he destroyed the Kešavadeva temple. There was no Bundela uprising in 1670 when the Kešavadeva temple was destroyed. The first Bundela rebellion led by Jujhar Singh had been put down by December, 1635 in the reign of Shãh Jahãn when that Rajput prince was killed and the ladies of his house-hold were forced into the Mughal harem. The second Bundela rebellion had ended with the suicide of Champat Rai in October, 1661. The third Bundela rebellion was still in the future.  Champat Rai’s son, Chhatrasal, had joined the imperial army sent against Shivaji in 1671 when Shivaji drew his attention to what was being done to the Hindus by Aurangzeb. It may also be pointed out that our professors stretch the Mathura region too far when they include Bundelkhand in it.

The professors have put the cart before the horse by holding the Jat rebellion in the Mathura region responsible for the destruction of the Kešvadeva temple. The Jats had risen in revolt under the leadership of Gokla (Gokul) after and not before Aurangzeb issued his firmãn of April, 1969 ordering destruction of Hindu temples everywhere. This highly provocative firmãn had come as a climax to several other happenings in the Mathura region. The Hindus of this region had been victims of Muslim high-handedness for a long time, particularly in respect of their women. Murshid Qulî Khãn, the faujdãr of Mathura who died in 1638, was notorious for seizing “all their most beautiful women” and forcing them into his harem. “On the birthday of Krishna,” narrates Ma’sîr-ul-Umara, “a vast gathering of Hindu men and women takes place at Govardhan on the Jumna opposite Mathura. The Khan, painting his forehead and wearing dhoti like a Hindu, used to walk up and down in the crowd. Whenever he saw a woman whose beauty filled even the moon with envy, he snatched her away like a wolf pouncing upon a flock, and placing her in the boat which his men kept ready on the bank, he sped to Agra. The Hindu [for shame] never divulged what had happened to his daughter.”¹⁶

Another notorious faujdãr of Mathura was Abdu’n Nabî Khãn. He plundered the people unscrupulously and amassed great wealth. But his worst offence was the pulling down of the foremost Hindu temple in the heart of Mathura and building a Jãmi‘ Masjid on its site. This he did in AD 1660-61. Soon after, in 1665, Aurangzeb imposed a pilgrim tax on the Hindus. In 1668, he prohibited celebration of all Hindu festivals, particularly Holi and Diwali. The Jats who rightly regarded themselves as the defenders of Hindu hounour were no longer in a mood to take it lying.

It is true that the capture and murder of Gokul with fiendish cruelty and the forcible conversion of his family members to Islam, coincided with the destruction of the Kešavadeva temple. But there is no reason to suppose that the temple would have been spared if there was no Jat rebellion. There were no rebellions in the vicinity of many other temples which were destroyed at that time or at a later stage. The temples were destroyed in obedience to the imperial firmãn and for no other reason.
 

The Logic of the Argument

The real worth of the defence of Aurangzeb put up by the professors becomes evident if we lead their argument for economic and political motives to its logical conclusion. The Kešvadeva temple was not the only place of worship which was wealthy. Many mosques and dargãhs and other places of Muslim worship were bursting with riches in Aurangzeb’s time. But he is not known to have sought booty in any one of them. There were several rebellions led by Muslims against the rule of Aurangzeb. Some of these rebellions had their centres in places of Muslim worship. Yet Aurangzeb is not known to have destroyed any one of these places before or after suppressing the rebellions. So, even if we accept the economic and political motives for the destruction of Hindu temples, an irreducible minimum of the religious motive remains. That alone can explain the erection of an Îdgãh on the site of the Kešavadeva temple and taking away the idols to Agra for being trodden under foot by the faithful.
 

The Argument about Historicity

Now we can take up the last point by raising which the professors seem to clinch their case in defence of Aurangzeb. They question the historicity of Šrî KrishNa and dismiss him as a mythological character who can have no place of birth. The implication is that Hindus are getting unduly excited by associating the Kešavadeva temple with the birth-place of Šrî KrishNa and should cool down after discovering that the temple was built by a Rajput protege of Jahãngîr, at a nondescript place and on a much later date. This is a strange argument, to say the least. It means that the sanctity of a religious place declines in proportion to its dissociation from a historical personality. One wonders if the professors would extend the logic to Muslim ziãrats and qadam-sharîfs which are associated with characters who cannot be traced in any history. Some of these ziãrats have been built on the sites and from the debris of Hindu temples according to unimpeachable archaeological evidence. The qadam-sharîfs are without a doubt the Buddha’s feet carved in the early phases of Buddhism and worshipped in subsequent ages by the Buddhists as well as the Hindus. The Ka‘ba at Mecca was taken over by Muhammad because, according to him, it was built by Abraham in the first instance and occupied by the polytheists at a later stage. Should the Muslims take the desecration or demolition of the Ka‘ba less seriously if they are told that Abraham has never figured in human history?  There is no evidence that he did.

Of course, Šrî KrishNa is a historical character which the professors can find out for themselves by reading Bankim Chandra, Šrî Aurobindo and many other savants who have, unlike them, studied the subject. But that is not the point. The Šrî KrishNa for whom the Hindus really care is a far greater figure than the Šrî KrishNa of history. What they really worship is the Šrî KrishNa of mythology. There are many temples and places of pilgrimage all over India associated with this mythological Šrî KrishNa. So are the various šaktipîThas associated with the limbs of Pãrvatî scattered by Šiva during the course of his anguish over her death. So are the various jyotirliñgas and most other places of Hindu pilgrimage. In fact, a majority of the renowned places of Hindu worship and pilgrimage have only mythology in support of their sanctity. Are the professors telling the Hindus that the desecration or destruction of these places should cause no heart-burn to them because the characters associated with these places are drawn from mythology, and that an iconoclast is badly needed in every case for blowing up the myth?
 

The Birth-Place of Šrî Rãma

Having cleared the “confusion” over the birth-place of Šrî KrishNa, the professors proceed to clear a similar “confusion” regarding the birth-place of Šrî Rãma. We are ignoring their insinuation that the second “confusion” has been created “probably deliberately”. The insinuation has its source in political polemics and not in academic propriety to which professors are expected to adhere. We are also ignoring the implication that Šrî Rãma being another mythological character is not entitled to a place of birth because, mercifully, the professors concede that a place called Rãma-janmabhûmi did exist at Ayodhya, and that it did not occupy the site of a Buddhist monastery demolished by the devotees of Šrî Rãma. We shall only examine the point they have raised, namely, that the mosque known as the Babari Masjid does not stand on the site of the Rãma-janmabhûmi.

The professor have referred us to a “Persian text of the mid-nineteenth century” which “states that the Babari mosque was adjacent to the Sita-ka-rasoi-ghar and was known as Rasoi-Sita mosque and adjoined the area associated with the birthplace of Rama”. What they mean in plain language is that the real Babari Masjid, also known as Rasoi-Sita Masjid, has disappeared or been demolished by the Hindus at some stage, and that there is no substance in the current Hindu claim that die mosque known as the Babari Masjid at present stands on the site of a temple built on the Rãma-janmabhûmi.

This contention could have been examined satisfactorily if the professors had named the Persian text and told us whether, according to it, the Rasoi-Sita Masjid stood on the right or left of the Sita-ka-rasoi-ghar. We can, therefore, thank the professors only for admitting that the Muslims did raise a mosque on a spot which, we may be permitted to infer, was also sacred for the Hindus. But, at the same time, we cannot help wondering why the professors are at pains to pin-point the exact spot where Šrî Rãma was born instead of conceding that the temple built in his memory must have occupied a large area. Maps of the area in which the mosque now known as the Babari Masjid stands, show clearly that the site of the Sita-ka-rasoi-ghar is adjacent to the mosque. Is it not possible that what is now known as the Babari Masjid was also known as Rasoi-Sita Masjid in the mid-nineteenth century? Moreover, the mosque in dispute has been named as the Babari Masjid by the Muslims and not by the Hindus.

Thus the Persian text dragged in by the professors creates complications rather than clear the “confusion” which, according to the professors, exists in the Hindu mind. On the face of it, it looks like a deliberate attempt to side-track the issues involved. The suspicion gets strengthened when the professors go on to suggest that prior to the nineteenth century the dispute was not over the Rãma-janmabhûmi but over “the totally different site of Hanuman-baithak.” No doubt the suggestion admits, although inadvertently, that there was a Hanuman temple at Ayodhya which also the Muslims had converted into a mosque. But we are trying to straighten the record regarding a mosque standing on the site of the Rãma-janmabhûmi temple.¹⁷

Finally, their thesis is that “acts of intolerance have been committed in India by followers of all religions.” Having found it difficult to hide the atrocities committed by Islam in India, they have invented stories of Buddhist, Jain and Animist temples destroyed by the Hindus. We shall examine these stories in some detail at a later stage in this study. Here it should suffice to say that in their effort to whitewash Islam they have ended by blackening Hinduism. The exercise is devoid of all academic scruples and is no more than a neurotic exhibition of their deep-seated anti-Hindus animus.¹⁸
 

The Appropriate Context

What is most amazing about our Marxist professors, however, is that while they are never tired of preaching that facts of history should be placed in their proper context, they have studiously managed to miss the only context which explains simply and satisfactorily the destruction of Hindu temples by Islamic invaders. Our reference here is to the theology of Islam systematised on the basis of the Qu’rãn and the Sunnah of the Prophet. This theology lays down loud and clear that it is a pious act for Muslims to destroy the temples of the infidels and smash their idols. Conversion of infidel temples into mosques wherever practicable, is a part of the same doctrine. We have presented this theology at some length in Section IV.

Destruction of idols and conversion of infidel places of worship into mosques became obligatory on Muslim conquerors and kings whenever they got the opportunity. The plunder which the iconoclasts obtained from infidel places of worship was not the main motive; that was only an additional bounty which Allãh had promised to bestow on them for performing pious deeds and earning religious merit. Those who want to know the relevant prescriptions of Islam should read the orthodox biographies of the Prophet, the orthodox collections of Hadîth, and the authentic commentaries by recognised imãms rather than swallow old wive’s tales told by Marxist professors.

This is the simple and straightforward explanation why Muslim invaders of India destroyed Hindu temples on a large scale and converted many of them into mosques. The economic and political motives, invented by the Marxists, are not only far-fetched but also do not explain the destruction and/or conversion of numerous temples which contained no riches, and where no conspiracy could be conceived.

The Muslim apologists who have been in a hurry to borrow the Marxist explanation do not know what they are doing. The explanation converts Islam into a convenient cover for brigandage and the greatest Muslim heroes into mere bandits. In the mouth of those Muslims who know what their religion prescribes vis-a-vis infidel places of worship, this apologetics is dishonest as well. They should have the honesty to admit the tenets of the religion to which they subscribe. It is a different matter whether those tenets can be defended on any spiritual or moral grounds. That is a subject on which Islam will have to do some introspection and hold a dialogue with Hinduism some day.

Finally, the professors want us to remember that “many Hindu temples were untouched during Aurangzeb’s reign, and even some new ones were built”. The underlying assumption is that Aurangzeb’s writ ran in every nook and corner of India, all through his reign. But the assumption is unwarranted. There is plenty of evidence in Persian histories themselves that there were regions in which Hindu resistance to Aurangzeb’s terror was too strong to be overcome even by repeated expeditions. It is no credit to Aurangzeb that the Hindus in those regions were able to save their old temples and also build some new ones. The Hindus all over north India were up in arms against the Muslim rule during Aurangzeb’s long absence in the South. If they built some new temples, it was in spite of Aurangzeb. The subject needs a detailed scrutiny on the basis of concrete cases located in space and time. It must, however, be pointed out that the professors bid goodbye to all sense of proportion when they gloat on the few temples that survived or were newly built while they forget the large number of temples that were destroyed. They also forget that, in the present context, exceptions only prove the rule.
 

Footnotes:
¹ The Varãha PurãNa says, The is no God like Kešava and no BrãhmaNas like those of Mathurã. ² Romila Thapar, ‘The Early History of Mathurã upto and including the Mauryan period’ in Mathurã: The Cultural Heritage, edited by Doris Meth Sriniwasan, New Delhi, 1989. p. 15. It is her habit to speak with two tongues - one when she is in the midst of scholars who know the facts, and another when she functions as a professional Hindu-baiter.
³ V.S. Agarawala, Masterpieces of Mathura Sculpture, Varanasi, 1965.  p. 1.
⁴ Ibid., P. 2.
⁵ Ibid., p. 11.
⁶ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXIV (1937-38), New Delhi, Reprint, 1982, p. 208.
⁷ R.C. Sharma, ‘New Inscriptions from Mathurã’ in Mathurã: The Cultural Heritage, op. cit., p. 309.
⁸ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XXXII (1957-58), New Delhi, Reprint, 1987, p. 206.
⁹ Ibid., p. 208.
¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 208-209.
¹¹ Epigraphia Indica, Vol. I (1892), New Delhi, Reprint, 1983, p. 287.
¹² Ibid., p. 288.
¹³ Ibid., 289.
¹⁴ Quoted by Jadunath Sarkar, op. cit., p. 186.
¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 186-89.
¹⁶ Quoted by Ibid., pp. 193-94. The Jat rebellion is dealt with in detail by Girish Chandra Dwivedi in his book, The Jats: Their Role in the Mughal Empire, New Delhi, 1979.
¹⁷ The Hindu case is presented in two publications of Voice of India - Ram Janmabhoomi Vs. Babri Masjid, by Koenraad Elst (1990) and History Versus Casuistry: Evidence of the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir presented by the Vishva Hindu Parishad to the Government of India in December-January 1990-91 (1991).
¹⁸ See Appendix 4 for the Marxist proposition of placing Hinduism on the same level as Islam.

DERA KESHAV RAI TEMPLE CREATED ON BIDDHIST MONASTRY AS SUCH IDGAH BUILT ON RUIN OF BUDDHISM

SPREADING THE BIG LIE

According to the Marxist professors “what is really required is an investigation into the theory that both the Dera Keshav Rai temple and the Idgah were built on the site of a Buddhist monastery which appears to have been destroyed.” Thank God, they have suggested it only as a theory; elsewhere in their writings they have not been that cautious. In fact, they have gone out of their way in spreading the Big Lie that the Hindus destroyed many Buddhist and Jain temples and monasteries in the pre-Islamic past. They have never been able to cite more than half-a-dozen instances of dubious veracity. But that has sufficed for providing a vociferous plank in the “progressive” party line. “If the descendants of Godse,” writes the executive editor of a prestigious Marxist monthly, “think that every medieval mosque has been built after demolishing some temple, why should we stop at the medieval period? After all, Hindu kings had also got a large number of Jain and Buddhist temples destroyed. The KrishNa temple at Mathutã rose on the ruins of a Buddhist monastery. There are hundreds of such places (that is, Hindu temples built on the ruins of Buddhist and Jain places of worship) in Karnataka, Rajasthãn, Bihãr and Uttar Pradesh.”¹ The author of the article did not think it necessary to quote some instances. The proposition, he thought, was self-evident. Herr Goebbles, too, never felt the need of producing any evidence in support of his pronouncements.

It is unfortunate that some Buddhist and Jain scholars have swallowed this lie without checking the quality and quantity of the evidence offered. Some of these “scholars” are known for their “progressive” inclinations. But there are others who have become victims of a high-powered propaganda. The happiest people, however, have been the Christian missionaries and the apologists of Islam. Does it not, they say, blow up the bloody myth that Hinduism has a hoary tradition of religious tolerance and that all religions coexisted peacefully in this country before the advent of Islam and Christianity? We shall examine this canard exhaustively at a later stage in this study. For the present we are confining ourselves to the “evidence” offered in the context of the Kešavadeva temple. We reproduce below the relevant reports of the Archaeological Survey of India.

“In 1853,” writes Dr. J. Ph. Vogel, “regular explorations were started by General Cunningham on the KaTrã and continued in 1862. They yielded numerous sculptural remains; most important among them is an inscribed standing Buddha image (height 3’6”) now in the Lucknow Museum. From the inscription it appears that this image was presented to the Yašã-Vihãra in the Gupta year 230 (AD 549-50)…²

“The last archaeological explorations at Mathura were carried out by Dr. Fuhrer between the year 1887 and 1896. His chief work was the excavation of the Kañkãlî Tîlã in the three seasons of 1888-91. He explored also the KaTrã site. Unfortunately, no account of his researches is available, except the meager information contained in his Museum Reports for those years… The plates of which only a few are reproductions of photographs and the rest drawings, illustrate the sculptures acquired in the course of Dr. Fuhrer’s excavations but do not throw much fight on the explorations themselves ...³

“He [Cunningham] proposes to identify Kesopura, the quarter in which the KaTrã is situated, with ‘the Klisobora or Kaisobora of Arrian and the Calisobora of Pliny.’ It is, however, evident that the Mohalla Kesopura was named after the shrine of Keso or Kesab (Skt. Kešava) Dev. This temple stood, as we noticed above, on the ruins of a Buddhist monastery which still existed in the middle of the sixth century. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the name Kesopura goes back to the days of Arrian.⁴

“All we can say from past explorations is the following: The KaTrã must have been the site of a Buddhist monastery named the Yašã-Vihãra which was still extant in the middle of the sixth century. It would seem that in the immediate vicinity there existed a stûpa to which the Bhûtesar railing pillars belong. Dr. Fuhrer mentions indeed in one of his reports that, in digging at the back of Aurangzeb’s mosque, he struck the procession path of a stûpa bearing a dedicatory inscription.”⁵

Dr. Vogel returned to the theme in 1911-12. He wrote:

“The Keshab-Dev temple, of which the foundation can still clearly be traced stood again on earlier remains of Buddhist origin. This became at once apparent from General Cunningham’s explorations on this site in the years 1853 and 1862, which opened the era of archaeological research at Mathurã. Among his finds was a standing Buddha image (4’3.5”), now in the Lucknow Museum, bearing an inscription, which is dated in the Gupta year 230 (AD 549-50) and records that the image was dedicated by the Buddhist nun JayabhaTTã at the Yašã-Vihãra.

“Several Buddhist sculptures, mostly of the KushãNa period have since been discovered in the KaTrã mound. So that there can be little doubt, that it marks the site of an important monastic establishment. It was particularly ‘one’ find which seemed to call for further investigation. Dr. Fuhrer while describing his last exploration of the year 1896 on the KaTrã, says the following, ‘About 50 paces to the north of this plinth [of the Kešavadeva Temple] I dug a trail trench, 80 feet long, 20 feet broad and 25 feet deep, in the hope of exposing the foundations and some of the sculptures of this Kešava temple. However, none of the hoped for Brahmanical sculptures and inscriptions were discovered, but only fragments belonging to an ancient stûpa. At a depth of 20 feet I came across a portion of the circular procession-path leading round this stûpa. On the pavement, composed of large red sandstone slabs, a short dedicatory inscription was discovered, according to which this stûpa, was repaired in samvat 76 by the Kushana King Vasushaka; unfortunately, I was unable to continue the work and lay bare the whole procession-path, as the walls of the brick structure, adjoining the Masjid are built right across the middle of this stûpa.’

“Unfortunately, the inscription referred to by Dr. Fuhrer was never published, nor were estampages of it known to exist. Since the discovery of the inscribed sacrificial post (yûpa) of Isãpur had established the fact that between Kanishka and Huvishka there reigned a ruler of the name of Vãsishka, it became specially important to verify the particulars given by Dr. Fuhrer in the above quoted note.

“The endeavours made by Pandit Radha Krishna to recover Dr. Fuhrer’s inscription were not crowned with success. It is true, however, that on the spot indicated the remains of a brick stûpa honeycombed by the depredations of contractors came to light. This monument, however, cannot be assigned a date earlier than about the sixth century of our era. Of the circular procession path of red stone slabs mentioned in Dr. Fuhrer’s report, no trace was found, but at a much higher level there was a straight causeway of stone referable to about the 12th or 13th century AD. Evidently it has nothing whatsoever to do with the stûpa. The causeway in question, which is 48’ long, 4’ 6” wide, runs straight from north to south and is constructed of large sandstone slabs roughly dressed and apparently obtained from different quarries. The size of these stones shows considerable variations, one measuring 6’6” by 1’6” by 9” and another 4’ 7” by 1’7” by 9”. The causeway consists of a double layer of these slabs laid three by three, the whole being very irregular. The slabs were bound with iron clamps, some of which still remain. Five of the stones are marked with a trident (trišûl).

“In course of excavation numerous sculptural fragments came to light mostly of a late date and apparently decorative remains of the Kesab Deb temple destroyed by Aurangzeb. Among earlier finds I wish only to mention a broken fourfold Jaina image (pratimã sarvato bhadrikã) with a fragmentary inscription in Brãhmî of the Kushan period.”⁶

A persual of these reports yields the following facts and conclusions:

1. General Cunningham’s surmise about a Buddhist monastery being buried in the KaTrã mound was no more than a mere speculation. The speculation was based on the discovery of a loose sculpture and not on the laying bare of any foundations or other remains of a monastery. Can the subsequent discovery of a Jain sculpture at the same site be relied upon to say that a Jain monastery also lies buried there? It has to be noted, that in Mathura many Brahmanical sculptures and architectural fragments have been found on sites such as the Jamãlpur and Kañkãlî mounds which are definitely known as Buddhist and Jain sites on the basis of foundations of monasteries etc., discovered there. No one has ever speculated that the Buddhist and Jain monuments at these sites were built on the ruins of Brahmanical temples.⁷

2. Dr. Vogel rejected General Cunningham’s identification of the KaTrã site with Kesopura on the basis of the latter’s speculation that a Buddhist monastery was buried under the Kešavadeva temple. This was tantamount to proving what he had already assumed. With equal logic, he could have rejected General Cunningham’s speculation about a Buddhist monastery and confirmed his identification of the KaTrã site with Kesopura. It seems that a pro-Buddhist and anti-Brahmanical bias, which was as dominant in his days as it is in our own, was responsible for his arbitrary choice from two equally plausible speculations on the part of the same explorer, namely, General Cunningham.

3. That a stûpa existed in the vicinity of the Kešvadeva temple is clear from the findings of Dr. Fuhrer as well as Pandit Radha Krishna. But Dr. Fuhrer’s discovery of a circular procession path belonging to the stûpa and passing under the KaTrã mound was not confirmed by the digging undertaken by Pandit Radha Krishna. It seems that the large sandstone slabs which Dr. Fuhrer construed as belonging to the procession path of the stûpa belonged in fact to the causeway which was uncovered by Pandit Radha Krishna and which had nothing whatsoever to do with the stûpa. Obviously, Dr. Fuhrer was misled into another speculation because of his reliance on the earlier speculation by General Cunningham.

4. Dr. Fuhrer had surmised that the stûpa was repaired in the reign of Vãsishka, that is, in the first decade of the second century AD. This he had done on the basis of an inscription he claimed to have read on a slab in what he thought to be the circular procession path of the stûpa. He is not known to have copied the inscription, nor has it ever been published. Pandit Radha Krishna who excavated in 1911-12 with the specific purpose of discovering that inscription failed not only to find it but also the circular procession path. What is more, the stûpa which was the same as that seen by Dr. Fuhrer could not be assigned to a date earlier than the sixth century AD, that is, four centuries after the reign of Vãsishka!

That is the picture which emerges from the explorations and excavations undertaken at the KaTrã site by General Cunningham in 1853 and 1862, Dr. Fuhrer in 1896, and Pandit Radha Krishna in 1911-12. There is no positive evidence about the existence of a Buddhist edifice in the KaTrã mound. All that can be said is that a Buddhist stûpa was built in the vicinity of the site some time in the sixth century.

No trace of a Buddhist monastery or any other Buddhist monument was found in the extensive exploration and excavation undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India at the KaTrã site during 1954-55, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. None of the archaeologists who undertook the diggings has subscribed to the theory propounded earlier by General Cunningham, Dr. Fuhrer and Dr. Vogel and now by the Marxist professors. “Thirty eight sculptures,” wrote R.C. Sharma in 1984, “saw their way to the Mathurã Museum in July 1954 when Sri K.D. Vajpeyi (later Professor) was the Curator. They were unearthed as a result of levelling and digging of the KaTrã site for renovating the birthplace of Lord KRSNa and were made over to the Museum by the Janmabhûmi Trust. Some other objects which were casually picked up by others from KaTrã site were also acquired. The finds include terra-cottas from Mauryan to Gupta periods, a few brick panels with creeper designs and several Brãhmanical objects ranging from Gupta to early Medieval age. The number of fragments of ViSNu figures is quite considerable and this suggests that a big VaiSNava or Bhãgvata complex once stood on the site.”⁸

The controversy should stand closed with what Professor Heinrich Luders, the great expert on Mathura, has to say on the subject. “Considering the well-known untrustworthiness of Dr. Fuhrer’s reports,” he writes, “there can be no doubt that the VasuSka inscription is only a product of his imaginations.”⁹ Steven Rosen has accused Dr. Vogel of “attempted forgery” in editing the Morã Well inscription discovered by Cunningham in 1882. “Many early archaeologists in India,” he writes, ‘were Christian - and they made no bones about their motivation.”¹⁰ He adds, “Dr. Vogel in attempting to distort the Morã Well inscription was right in the line with many of his predecessors in the world of Indology and archaeology.”¹¹
 

II

It is welcome that the professors are prepared for an investigation for finding whether the KaTrã mound hides the remains of a Buddhist monastery under the remains of the Kešavadeva temple. Only a thorough excavation of the site on which the Îdgãh stands can settle the question. But it must be pointed out that the excavation may not stop at the Buddhist monastery if it is uncovered at all. If it is true, as they say, that Hindus and Buddhists were at daggers drawn in the pre-Islamic period, they should be prepared for the possibility that the Buddhist monastery itself was built on the ruins of an earlier Hindu temple. After all, the most ancient and prolific Indian literature associates Mathura with the birth and youth of Šrî KrishNa, while the Buddhist associations with Mathura do not go beyond Greek and KushãNa times. We have already quoted Romila Thapar regarding the Kešvadeva tradition going back to the Mauryan period. It is quite plausible on the hypothesis of the professors that some Greek or KushãNa patron of Buddhism destroyed a Hindu temple which stood at Šrî KrishNa’s place of birth before he raised a Buddhist monastery on the site. Of course, we do not subscribe to this story of Hindu-Buddhist conflict. There is no evidence that the Hindus ever destroyed a Buddhist place of worship or vice versa.  We are only proposing a test for the Marxist hypothesis.

It is intriguing indeed that whenever archaeological evidence points towards a mosque as standing on the site of a Hindu temple, our Marxist professors start seeing a Buddhist monastery buried underneath. They also invent some Šaiva king as destroying Buddhist and Jain shrines whenever the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples by Islamic invaders is mentioned. They never mention the destruction of big Buddhist and Jain complexes which dotted the length and breadth of India, Khurasan, and Sinkiang on the eve of the Islamic invasion, as testified by Hüen Tsang. We should very much like to know from them as to who destroyed the Buddhist and Jain temples and monasteries at Bukhara, Samarqand, Khotan, Balkh, Bamian, Kabul, Ghazni, Qandhar, Begram, Jalalabad, Peshawar, Charsadda, Ohind, Taxila, Multan, Mirpurkhas, Nagar-Parkar, Sialkot, Srinagar, Jalandhar, Jagadhari, Sugh, Tobra, Agroha, Delhi, Mathura, Hastinapur, Kanauj, Sravasti, Ayodhya, Varanasi, Sarnath, Nalanda, Vikramasila, Vaishali, Rajgir, Odantapuri, Bharhut, Champa, Paharpur, Jagaddal, Jajnagar, Nagarjunikonda, Amravati, Kanchi, Dwarasamudra, Devagiri, Bharuch, Valabhi, Girnar, Khambhat Patan, Jalor, Chandravati, Bhinmal, Didwana, Nagaur, Osian, Ajmer, Bairat, Gwalior, Chanderi, Mandu, Dhar, etc., to mention only the more prominent ones. The count of smaller Buddhist and Jain temples destroyed by the swordsmen of Islam runs into hundreds of thousands. There is no dearth of mosques and other Muslim monuments which have buried in their masonry any number of architectural and sculptural pieces from Buddhist and Jain monuments.

It is not so long ago that Western scholars, even Christian missionaries, used to credit the Hindus at least with one virtue, namely, religious tolerance. Hindus had received universal acclaim for providing refuge and religious freedom to the Jews, the Christians, and the Parsis who had run away from persecutions at the hands of Christian and Islamic rulers in West Asia and Iran. It was also conceded that though Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain sects and subsects had had heated discussions among themselves and used even strong language for their adversaries, the occasions when they exchanged physical blows were few and far between. The recent spurt of accusations that Hindus also were bigots and vandals like Christians and Muslims, seems to be an after-thought. Apologists who find it impossible to whitewash Christianity and Islam, are out to redress the balance by blackening Hinduism. Till recently, the Marxists were well-known for compiling inventories of capitalist sins in order to hide away the crimes committed in Communist countries.

The professors see some retributive justice in the destruction of the Kešavadeva temple by Aurangzeb because they believe that the temple was built on the ruins of a Buddhist monastery destroyed by the Hindus in the pre-Islamic past. It does not speak very highly of whatever moral sense the professors may possess that they should justify or explain away the wrong done by someone during one period in terms of another wrong done by someone else at some distant date. The whole argument is tantamount to saying that the murder of A by B is justified or should be explained away because the great-great-great grandfather of A had murdered C!

But after all is said about the Marxist professors, we must admit the merit of their last point, namely, “the question of limits to the logic of restoration of religious sites.” Our plea is that the question can be answered satisfactorily only when we are prepared to face facts and a sense to proportion is restored. That is exactly what this study intends to do.
 

Footnotes:
¹ Gautama Navalakhã, ‘Bhakti Sãhitya kã Durupayoga’, HaMsa, Hindi monthly, New Delhi, June 1987, p. 21.  Emphasis added. ² Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report 1906-07, p. 137.
³ Ibid., p. 139.
⁴ Ibid., p. 140.
⁵ Ibid., pp. 140-41.
⁶ Ibid., Annual Report 1911-12, pp. 132-33.
⁷ How much mistaken General Cunningham could be in his speculations sometimes is shown by Dr. R.C. Sharma who has been a Curator of the Museum at Mathura. “Sir Alexander Cunningham,” he writes, “during his first exploration in 1853 found some pillars of a Buddhist railing at the site of KaTra Keshavadev renowned as birthplace of Lord KRSna. Later he recovered a gateway from the same spot and a standing Buddha figure from a well recording the name of the monastery as Yasã Vihãra. He remarks, ‘I made the first discovery of Buddhist remains at the temple of Kesau Ray in January 1853, when, after a long search I found a broken pillar of a Buddhist railing sculptured with the figure of Mãyã Devî standing under the Sãla tree’. Cunningham was mistaken when he identified the lady on railing as Mãyã Devî. Since it was the first discovery he thought the representation conveyed some special event. Now we know that the lady under tree was a common representation on the rail posts of KuSãNa period and it does not specifically represent Mãyã Devî” (R.C. Sharma, Buddhist Art of Mathurã, Delhi, 1984, p. 51).
⁸ R.C. Sharma, op.  Cit. PP. 83-84.
⁹ Heinrich Luders, Mathura Inscriptions, Gottingen, 1961, p. 30.
¹⁰ Steven Rosen, Archaeology and the Vaishnava Traditions: The Pre-Christian Roots of Krishna Worship, Calcutta, 1989, pp. 25-26.
¹¹ Ibid., p. 28.

RUDRAMAHALAYA BUILT AT SIDHPUR STRIFE WITH COMMUNAL PROBLEM ON SUPERSTRUCTURE OF JAMI MASJID

THE STORY OF RUDRAMAHÃLAYA

In order to understand fully the meaning of what was exposed at Sidhpur and the strife it caused, we have to know what the Rudramahãlaya was, how it came to be built at Sidhpur and how a Jãmi‘ Masjid was raised on its site and from its debris. The Report of the Minorities’ Commission provides some historical background. So does the Note from the Government of Gujarat. But the information is meagre and leaves a lot to be told. Both of them were dealing with a “communal problem” and were not expected to give a detailed history of Sidhpur, the Rudramahãlaya and the Jãmi‘ Masjid.
 

Sidhpur

The Note from the Government of Gujarat gives no information about the historical or religious importance of Sidhpur. The Report of the Minorities’ Commission says that “Sidhpur is a historical town” and that “it was ruled successively by Hindu Rajas and Muslim Sultans.”¹ There is no reference to the religious importance of Sidhpur as a place of Hindu pilgrimage. The article by B.L. Nagarch brings out that point when it says that “as the obsequial offerings to the paternal ancestors must be made at Gaya, so corresponding offerings to the maternal ancestors have to be performed at Sidhpur.” Nagarch tells us also that “the ancient name of Sidhpur appears to have been Šrîsthala or Šrîsthalaka” and that “the name of Sidhapur was given to this place in honour of Siddharãja JayasiMha who completed the Temple of Rudra-Mahãdeva in the twelfth century here.”²

The PurãNas regard Šrîsthala as the most sacred spot in the Sãrasvata-maNDala of Gujarat. The Bhãgvata PurãNa associates it with Kardama rishi, who had his hermitage here, and also with Kapila muni, who was born in this place on the bank of the sacred Sarasvati river. It was also known as Vindusara.³ It is said that ANahillapãTaka or ANahillapaTTaNa, the capital of medieval Gujarat before Ahmadabad came up in the first quarter of the fifteenth century, was founded where it was because of its nearness to Šrîsthala.

ANahillapaTTaNa, now known as Patan, was built in AD 745 by Vanarãja, the founder of the ChãvoTkaTa or Chãpã or Chãvdã dynasty. It reached its greatest glory, however, in the reign of JayasiMha (AD 1094-1143), the most illustrious ruler of the Chaulukya or Solãñkî dynasty of Gujarat.  Jayasimha was very much devoted to Šrîsthala and visited it often in order to keep the company of sages and saints living at this place. There is a popular legend that JayasiMha defeated and captured Barbara, a demon who was molesting the holy men at Šrîsthala. Barbara, we are told, became his obedient servant and performed many superhuman deeds for him. That is how JayasiMha earned the sobriquet of Siddharãja. He built at Šrîsthala a temple dedicated to Rudra Mahãkãla which became known as Rudramahãlaya or simply Rudramãla. Because of its close association with Siddharãja, Šrîsthala became known as Siddhapura which name was corrupted to Sidhpur in course of time.

The spiritual fame of Sidhpur, however, proved to be its misfortune when Gujarat passed under a long spell of Muslim rule towards the close of the thirteenth century. Thereafter it attracted the attention of every Islamic iconoclast. Its temples were reduced to ruins and its holy men were either killed or scared away. Its spiritual importance had become greatly reduced when MuNhata NaiNasî, the famous historian of Rajasthan, visited it in Samvat 1717 (AD 1660). NaiNasî was at that time the Dîwãn of Mahãrãja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur who had been appointed the Governor of Gujarat by Aurangzeb in AD 1658. He has left for us a brief description, historical and topographical, of Sidhpur as he saw it. “Sidhpur,” writes NaiNasî “is a pleasant city. It was founded by Sidharão after his own name. He invited from the East one thousand Udîchya BrãhmaNas who were well-versed in the Vedas and gave them seven hundred villages around Sidhpur… He had built a big temple named Rudramãla. That was razed to the ground by Sultãn Alãuddîn. Even so, several temples survive today. Beyond the city, towards the east, there is the river Sarasvarî. A temple dedicated to Mãdhava had been built on its bank. A ghãTa [flight of steps leading to the river] has also been constructed. The temple was destroyed by the Mughals but the ghãTa can still be seen… A Turk has built his bungalow on the ghãTa.”⁴

Sidhpur was liberated from the Muslim stranglehold by the Marathas in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. By the first quarter of the nineteenth, the Marathas lost to the British and in the settlement that followed Sidhpur was included in the princely state of Baroda along with Patan. The Marathas made no attempt to revive Sidhpur as a centre of Hindu pilgrimage. Nor did they try to restore Patan as the seat of a Hindu government. Neither the spiritual nor the political capital of Gujarat at one time has retained anything of a great past except wistful memories.
 

Rudramahãlaya

The Note from the Government of Gujarat says that the Rudramahãlaya was “built by Siddharaja Jayasimha in the 12th century” and that “it had eleven shrines dedicated to Akadasa Rudras.”⁵ The Report of the Minorities’ Commission repeats this description with the elucidation that “in the centre of this complex was situated the temple and in and around the courtyard were 11 other shrines dedicated to the Rudras…”⁶ Both of them say that the temple was profusely sculptured and ornamented. But none of them mentions what has survived of the central temple or the surrounding shrines.

B.L. Nagarch gives greater details in his aforementioned article. He writes:

“In about AD 944 Mûlarãja had founded the Rudra Mahãlaya, but as he had to remain busy in invasions and other engagements he could not complete it. This temple fell into ruins during the following centuries.  Siddharãja JayasiMha took up the work of reconstruction of this temple on a scale greater than that originally conceived and could not finish the work till his death in AD 1143.

“Rudramahãlaya is the grandest and the most imposing conception of a temple dedicated to Šiva. Only a few fragments of the mighty shrine now survive, namely, four pillars in the north and five in the eastern side, porches of the three storeyed maNDapa. Four pillars in the back of it, a toraNa and a cell at the back remain in situ after being dismantled in the 13th century AD. With its adjacent shrines, possibly eleven, part of which was converted into Jami mosque later in the Mughal period, it must have formed part of a grand conception dedicated to Ekãdaša Rudras.

“Originally it covered an area of 100 x 66 mtrs. The central building itself occupies an area of about 50 x 33 mtrs. The mighty pillars of this temple are the tallest so far known in Gujarat.”⁷

It is difficult to visualize what the Rudramahãlaya looked like when it stood intact and in all its majesty. No other edifice of a similar conception has survived. We have only some legendary accounts, one of which is from NaiNasî who tells us how the Rudramahãlaya was conceived and constructed. We give below a summary of what he has written at length.

Sidharão, says NaiNasî, saw the Earth in a dream, appearing in the form of a damsel and demanding that she be decorated with a choice ornament. The king consulted the learned men who could divine dreams and they told him that the ornament for the Earth could mean only a magnificent temple. So the king invited architects from every land and they presented to him models of what they could conceive to be the best. But no model satisfied Sidharão and he became despondent. At that time there were two notorious thieves in his kingdom, Khãprã and Kãlã. As they started gambling on the Dîvãlî day, Khãprã wagered that he would give KoDidhaja, the renowned steed of Sidharão, if he lost the game. He lost and promised to the winner that he would procure the steed by the time of the next Dîvãlî day. He wormed himself into the confidence of Sidharão, first as a sweeper in the royal stable and then as a syce of KoDidhaja. The king who visited the stable everyday was very much pleased with Khãprã’s services and spent some time talking to him. One day the king confided to Khãprã his (the king’s) disappointment in the matter of a suitable temple. Soon after, the thief ran away with the horse and stopped for rest only when he reached the valley of Mount Abu. All of a sudden he saw the earth split and a temple came out. Gods and Goddesses staged a play in the temple as Khãprã watched sitting in a window of the divine edifice. He was reminded of Sidharão’s despondence and thought that this was the temple which would meet the king's expectations. He found out from the, Gods that the same miracle would be enacted again on the night of the day after next and rushed back to PãTaNa where he gave a graphic account to the king. The king came to the same spot and saw the temple which fully satisfied him. The Gods told him how to find the master architect who would build a similar temple for him. It took sixteen years to be completed, even though thousands of artisans were employed.⁸

NaiNasî has included in his chapter on the Rudramãla a poem written in its praise by Lalla BhaTTa.⁹ The first two stanzas which describe the architecture and sculptures of the temple are as follows:

Fourteen storeys rise above the earth and seven thousand pillars, 
In row after row, while eighteen hundred statues studded with emeralds adorn it.
It is endowed with thirty thousand flagstaffs with stems carved and leaves of gold.
Seven thousand sculptured elephants and horses stand in attendance on Rudra.
Seeing it all, Gods and men get struck with wonder and are greatly charmed,
JayasiMha has built a temple which excites the envy of emperors. The sculptured elephants and lions trumpet and roar, all around, again and again,
The golden kalašas glitter on the maNDapa upheld by numerous pillars.
The statues sing and dance and roll their eyes,
So that even the Gods jump with joy and blow their conches.
The ecstatic dance of Gods is watched by Gods and men who crowd around,
That is why the Bull,¹⁰ O Sidha! O King of Kings! is feeling frightened.

A modern expert on medieval Hindu architecture has speculated about the Rudramahãlaya on the basis of what has survived. “The Solãñkî tradition maintains,” writes Dr. S.K. Saraswati, “a rich and prolific output in the twelfth century AD which saw two eminent royal patrons of building art in Siddharãja JayasiMha and Kumãrapãla. With the former is associated the completion of an imposing conception, the Rudra Mãlã or Rudra Mahãlaya, at Siddhapur (Gujarãt). Unfortunately it is now completely in ruins but a picture of its former splendour seems to have survived in a Gujarãtî ballad which speaks of the temple as covered with gold, adorned with sixteen hundred columns, veiled by carved screens and pierced lattices, festooned with pearls, inlaid with gems over the doorways and glistening with rubies and diamonds. Much of this is, no doubt, exaggeration full of rhetoric; but the impressive character of the conception is evidenced by the scanty, though co-lossal, remains. They consist of groups of columns of the pillared maNDapa, which seems to have been in more than one storey, and had three enterance porticos on three sides. The surviving foundations suggest that the conception with the usual appurtenances occupied a space nearly 300 feet by 230 feet. In front there stood a kîrti-toraNa of which one column still remains. From the dimensions the Rudra Mãlã seems to have been one of the largest architectural conceptions in this area. The rich character of its design is fully evident in the few fragments that remain.”¹¹
 

The Jãmi‘ Masjid

The Note from the Government of Gujarat says that “the temple was destroyed and three shrines in the eastern flank of the temple were converted into a mosque but there is no evidence as to the date of conversion.”¹² The Report of the Minorities’ Commission gives more details about the destruction and conversion of the temple. “This temple,” says the Report, “seems to have been destroyed partly by Ulugh Khan in AD 1297-98 and partly by Ahmadshah in AD 1415. Some of the cubicles and a number of pillars on the Western side of the temple, it would appear were later converted into a mosque. The prayer hall of the mosque so converted has three domes. In the Western (Qaba) waft of the mosque Mimbar and Mehrabs were provided by using the doors of the shrines which were then filled with debris. The exact date of conversion of this part of Rudramahalaya complex is not known. However, according to inscriptions at the entrance it appears that the mosque known as Jama Masjid, was constructed during the reign of Aurangzeb in 1645.”¹³

B.L. Nagarch, on the other hand, writes that “the inscription fixed in the modern entrance gate to the mosque mentions the construction of shops by Ali Askari in Adil Ganj and there is no reference to the mosque.”¹⁴ Moreover, Aurangzeb was not the ruling Mughal monarch in 1645, having ascended the throne thirteen years later in 1658. The “temple remains” discovered inside the mosque also go to show that at least that part of the structure was built not long after the Rudramahãlaya was demolished. The Minorities’ Commission, it seems, has relied upon some local tradition about Aurangzeb having built the mosque. Aurangzeb did live in Gujarat in 1645 when he was appointed Governor of that province by Shãh Jahãn. He also destroyed Hindu temples in Gujarat as is evident from his firmãn dated November 20, 1665 which says that “In Ahmadabad and other parganas of Gujarat in the days before my accession (many) temples were destroyed by my order.”¹⁵ It seems that somewhere along the line several stories have got mixed up and Aurangzeb has been credited with a pious deed he did not perform at Sidhpur, not at least in respect of the Jãmi‘ Masjid built on the site and from the debris of the Rudramahãlaya. What might have happened is that some major repairs to the Jãmi‘ Masjid were carried out while he was the Governor of Gujarat and at his behest. The subject needs examination with reference to records, if any.

Nor do we find a specific mention of Sidhpur or the Rudramahãlaya in the available accounts of Ulugh Khãn’s invasion of Gujarat. The Minorities’ Commission has made a mistake in giving the date of the invasion as AD 1297-98. The correct date is 1299.

There is, however, no doubt that Ahmad Shãh I (AD 1411- 43), the Sultãn of Gujarat, destroyed the Rudramahãlaya and raised a mosque on the site. “Soon after his return to Ahmadabad,” writes S.A.I. Tirmizi, “Ahmad marched to Sidhpur, which was one of the most ancient pilgrim centres in north Gujarat. It was studded with beautiful temples, some of which were laid low.”¹⁶ A.K. Majumdar is more specific. “Ahmad Shãh like his grandfather,” he says, “was a bigot and seized every opportunity to demolish Hindu temples. In 1414, he appointed one Tãj-ul-Mulk to destroy all temples and to establish Muslim authority throughout Gujarat. According to Firishta, the task was ‘executed with such diligence that the names of Mawass and Girass (i.e. Hindu zamindãrs) were hereafter unheard of in the whole kingdom.’ Next year Ahmad attacked the celebrated city of Sidhpur in north Gujarat where he broke the images in the famous Rudramahalaya temple and converted it into a mosque.”¹⁷

A poetic account of what Ahmad Shãh did at Sidhpur is available in Mirãt-i-Sikandarî, the history of Gujarat, written by Sikandar ibn-i-Muhammad alias Manjhû ibn-i-Akbar in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. “He marched on Saiyidpur,”¹⁸ writes the historian, “on Jamãd-ul-Awwal in AH 818 (July/August, AD 1415) in order to destroy the temples which housed idols of gold and silver.
 

Verse

He marched under divine inspiration,
For the destruction of temples at Saiyidpur,
Which was a home of the infidels,
And the native place of accursed fire-worshippers.¹⁹
There they dwelt, day and night,
The thread-wearing idolaters.²⁰
It had always remained a place for idols and idol-worshippers,
It had received no injury whatsoever from any quarter.
It was a populous place, well-known in the world,
This native place of the accursed infidels.
Its foundations were laid firmly in stone,
It was decorated with designs as if drawn from high heaven.
It had doors made of sandal and ûd.²¹
It was studded with rings of gold,
Its floors were laid with marble,
Which shone like mirrors.
Ûd was burnt in it like fuel,
Candles of camphor in large numbers were lighted in it.
It had arches in every corner,
And every arch had golden chandeliers hanging in it.
There were idols of silver set up inside,
Which put to shame the idols of China and Khotãn.
Such was this famous ancient temple,
It was famous all over the world.
By the effort of Ahmad, it was freed from the idols,
The hearts of idol-worshippers were shattered with grief.
He got mosques constructed, and mimbars placed in them,
From where the Law of Muhammad came into force.
In place of idols, idol-makers and idol-worshippers,
Imãms and callers to prayers and khatîbs were appointed.
Ahmad’s good grace rendered such help,
That an idol-house became an abode of Allãh.

“When the Sultãn was free from Saiyidpur, he marched on Dhãr in AH 819 (AD 1416-17).”²²
 

Siddharãja JayasiMha

The destruction of Hindu temples and their conversion into mosques was, as we shall see, a normal occupation for most of the Muslim rulers in medieval India. What adds a touch of pathos to the destruction and conversion of the Rudramahãlaya is that its builder, Siddharãja JayasiMha, had become known to the Muslims as a protector of their places of worship in Gujarat. Many other Hindu rulers provided the same protection to their Muslim subjects, as is evident from the presence of Muslim populations and religious establishments in all leading towns of western, southwestern and northern India long before these towns were sacked and occupied by Islamic invaders. K.A. Nizami has devoted a long essay to this subject and named Lahore, Benares, Bahraich, Ajmer, Badaun, Kanauj, Bilgram, Gopamau and Koil (Aligarh), etc., in this context.²³ Other sources point to Muslim presence in the towns of Bengal, Bihar, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra. The doings of Siddharãja JayasiMha have, however, found place in a Muslim history. Jami’u-l Hikãyãt, written by Muhammad ‘Ufî who lived at Delhi in the reign of Shamsu’d-Dîn Iltutmish (AD 1210-36). The writer was a great collector of anecdotes regarding persons, places and events. He wrote:

“Muhammad ‘Ufî, the compiler of this work, observes that he never heard a story to be compared with this.  He had once been to Kambãyat (Cambay), a city situated on the sea-shore, in which, a number of Sunnîs, who were religious, faithful, and charitable lived. In this city, which belonged to the chiefs of Guzerãt and Nahrwãla,²⁴ was a body of Fire-worshippers²⁵ as well as the congregation of Musulmãns. In the reign of a king named Jai Singh, there was a mosque and a minaret from which the summons to prayers were cried.  The Fire-worshippers instigated the infidels to attack the Musulmãns and the minaret was destroyed, the mosque burnt, and eight Musulmãns were killed.

“A certain Muhammadan, a Khatîb, or reader of the Khutba by name Khatîb ‘Ali, escaped and fled to Nahrwãla. None of the courtiers of the Rãî paid any attention to him, or rendered him any assistance, each one being desirous to screen those of his own persuasion. At last, having learnt that the Rãî was going out to hunt, Khatîb ‘Ali sat down behind a tree in the forest and awaited the Rãî’s coming. When the Rãî had reached the spot, Khatîb ‘Ali stood up, and implored him to stop the elephant and listen to his complaint. He then placed in his hand a kaîsda, which he had composed in Hindi verse, stating the whole case. The Rãî having heard the case placed Khatîb ‘Ali under charge of a servant, ordering him to take the greatest care of him, and produce him in court when required to do so. The Rãî then returned, and having called his minister, made over temporary charge of the Government to him, stating that he intended to seclude himself for three days from public business in his harem, during which seclusion he desired to be left unmolested. That night, Rãî Jai Singh, having mounted a dromedary started from Nahrwãla for Kambãyat and accomplished the distance, forty parasangs, in one night and one day. Having disguised himself by putting on a tradesman’s dress, he entered the city, and stayed a short time in different places in the market place, making inquiries as to the truth of Khatîb ‘Ali’s complaint. He then learnt that the Muhammadans were oppressed and slain without any grounds for such tyranny. Having thus learnt the truth of the case, he filled a vessel with sea-water and returned to Nahrwãla, which he entered on the third night from his departure. The next day he held his court, and summonning all complainants he directed the Khatîb to relate his grievance. When he had stated his case, a body of the infidels wanted to intimidate him and falsify his statements. On this the Rãî ordered his water-carrier to give the water pot to them that they may drink from it. The Rãî then told them that he had felt unable to put implicit confidence in any one because a difference of religion was involved in the case; he had himself therefore gone to Kambãyat, and having made personal enquires as to the truth, had learnt that the Muhammadans were victims of tryanny and oppression. He said that it was his duty to see that all his subjects were afforded such protection as would enable them to live in peace. He then gave orders that two leading men from each class of Infidels, Brahmans, Fire-worshippers and others should be punished. He then gave a lac of Balotras²⁶ to enable them to build their mosque and minarets. He also granted to Khatîb four articles of dress. These are preserved to this day, but are exposed to view on high festival days. The mosque and minaret were standing until a few days ago.”²⁷
 

Footnotes:
¹ The Fourth Annual Report, p. 130. ² B.L Nagarch, op cit., p. 395.
³ Nundo Lal Day, The Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval India, third edition, New Delhi, 1971, p. 38.
⁴ Muñhatã NaiNasîrî Khyãta, Jodhpur, 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 261-62. The passage quoted has been Translate from The original in MãravãRî language.
⁵ The Fourth Annual Report, p. 141.
⁶ Ibid., p. 130.
⁷ B.L Nagarch, op.cit., p. 395.
⁸ Muñhatã NaiNasî, op.cit., pp. 258-61.
⁹ Ibid., pp. 262-63.
¹⁰ The reference is to the Bull who according to Hindu mythology supports the Earth on his horns.
¹¹ R.C. Majumdar (ed.), The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. V, The Struggle For Empire, Third Edition, Bombay, 1976, pp. 595-96.
¹² The Fourth Annual Report, p. 141.
¹³ Ibid., p. 130.
¹⁴ B.L Nagarch, op. cit., p. 395.
¹⁵ Quoted by Jadunath Sarkar, History of Aurangzeb, Vol. III, Calcutta, 1972 Impression. p. 285.
¹⁶ Mohammad Habib (ed.), A Comprehensive History of India, Vol. V, The Delhi Sultanat, First Reprint, New Delhi, 1982, p. 853.
¹⁷ R.C. Majumdar (ed.), op. cit., Vol. VI, The Delhi Sultanate, Bombay, 1960, p. 158.
¹⁸ The Islamic name of Sidhpur, unless it is a mispronunciation on the part of the historian. As we shall see in this study. Muslim rulers had Islamicized practically every important place-name in India.
¹⁹ Applied to Zoroastrians of Iran to start with, the term ‘fire-worshippers’ mars later of, used for idol-worshippers in India.
²⁰ The BrãhmaNas wearing the sacred thread.
²¹ A kind of costly wood.
²² Translated from the Hindi rendering in S.A.A. Rizvi’s Uttara Taimûra Kãlîna Bhãrata, Aligarh, 1959, Vol. II, pp. 268-69. Strangely enough, this poem has been omitted Iron the English translation by Fazlullah Lutfullah Faridi published from Dharampur and recently reprinted (Gurgaon.1990). The English translation says, “In AH 818 (AD 1416), the Sultãn attacked Sidhpur and broke the idols and images in the big temple at that place and turned the temple into a mosque” (p. 14).
²³ Mohammad Habib, op. cit., pp. 137-42.
²⁴ The Muslim pronunciation of ANahilwãDa.
²⁵ “The word in the original is Mugh which has been generally accepted to indicate the Zoroastrians or fire-worshippers, but Prof. S.H. Hodiwala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History (Bombay, 1939) pp. 72-73, thinks it may refer to Jains” (Epigraphia Indica-Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1961, p. 5n).
²⁶ Unit of a silver currency at that time.
²⁷ Elliot and Dowson, History of India as told by its own Historians, Vol. II, pp. 162-64. ‘Ufî expresses surprise at the Hindu King’s behaviour because such behaviour was inconceivable for a Muslim.  According to the Islamic norm, a king is expected to destroy rather than restore other people’s places of worship.