Medieval History

[Guest]

Ramana => The article is in progress. Especially as I want to include some more but brief information, for instance about constructing with white marble or marble stucco, which is certainly, contracry to standard pro-Mughal standard works, an old Hindu practice (of particularly Shaiva, Jaina and hybrid building traditions) much older than the Muslim presence in India! And there is a Muslim source too, outside the sphere of influence of Mughal influenced court writers, to substantiate this.



Husky => Very interesting reading on Dutch phonology. Fortunately I can read and understand Dutch. Obviously and gladly, you can too.



Some more interesting details about the two Sikandras and its spelling in Pelsaert's work:



In the Kroniek and Remonstrantie we have two clusters of spellings of Sikandra:

1. without a -t-: Secandra (2 occurrences)

2. with a -t-: a. Tsekandra (1 occurrence)

b. Tschandra (1 occurrence)



What is interesting, is that the spelling without a -t- is the one reserved for Sikandra Bihishtabad, or the place where the tomb of Akbar is.

The other ones with a -t- are exclusively used for the twincity of Agra (Akbarabad) on the eastern bank. This ìs a clear hint towards the twincity having a name originally spelled as Chandra (garh or pur?) before the Afghans, which changed into Sikandra after having been annexed by Sikandar Lodi and made into his capital city.

That the other riverbank had a fort, is hinted at by Keene in his handbook:



"We shall conduct the visitor next to the Ram Bagh. Whether this name was indicative of a dedication to the Hindu demi-god Rama, or whether the name is a corruption from a Persian word Aram Bag (the garden of repose), is a disputed point among local antiquaries.

The first notice that we have of it is as the temporary resting-place of the body of Emperor Babar, the founder of the Moghul dynasty (so called), who were in reality a mixed Turkish race descended from Timur the Lame, or Tamerlane. As it is believed that Babar lived in an old fort on the same side of the river opposite the Taj, it is extremely probable that the jovial hero, we are told, when he had a mind to be merry, was wont to fill a fountain with wine and join gaily in open-air revels with companions of both sexes. We may imagine this garden having been the scene of some of these Tartar picnics."

(from Keene's: A Handbook for Visitors to Agra and Its Neighbourhood, page 38)



This old fort on the eastern bank may have been one which was usurped by Sikandar Lodi when he made Chandra(garh?) > renamed as Sikandra his new capital. The name of the city on the western bank may have been Badalgarh.

Which old brick fort Akbar did 'destroy' is a matter of new discussion, as Abul Fazl doesn't mention the city Chandra/Sikandra, nor its (old) fort. Some local traditions attribute the construction (read: repairs) of Badalgarh fort to the Sikarwar Raja named Badal Singh in ca. 1478, hardly a century earlier. This Badal Singh may have been the maternal uncle of Man Singh Tomara. The Tomaras had also an intimate connection with Agra: both Gwalior and Agra have their Badalgarh forts, both cities have their white stucco buildings, both cities have their Man Singh's palaces. (Man Singh Kachhwaha only obtained (t)his Haveli, after becoming one of the most entrusted generals and "farzand = son" of Akbar.)

And Vikramaditya became the Kotwal of Agra after his defeat. This Kotwal's family and household had his residence in one of the grand Havelis to the south of the fort, as was customary (the Haveli of Jahangir's kotwal was also to the south).



For us, Hindus and Indians, it is a must to read (at least translations of) originals and contemporary works in order to judge what really the achievements of the Muslim dynasties were and what was certainly not theirs.



W.r.t. archaeology, the general consensus is that Hindu did build temples only in a fixed Shastrika way, according to classical works. What the standard authors do forget, is that Hindus didn't build temples only according to the fixed rules which did survive. They also built varied and that too hybrid temple structures, besides many styles of palatial buildings and also non-royal and non-religious residential structures. The Shastras do mention so many varieties of temple, palatial and common buildings that one wonders where the disappeared.



If the standard consensus is that all the Mughal period architecture has to be termed Mughal, all the Rajput structures automatically will be named as Mughal. I would rather suggest that the buildings should be termed as Mughal period structures, instead of calling it Mughal architecture. For instance the Mewar and Orccha architecture has nothing to do with Mughal 'architecture'. The Rajput architecture has many main regional schools of architecture with local varieties with also hybrid influences from the main and regional schools of other regions.

A point also ignored, is that Hindu architects and masons didn't have to wait for foreigners to include foreign concepts into their buildings. One such influence may have been for instance the Persian Iwan and Pishtaq from Sasanian kings through Gujarat. But also the Bauddha, Shaiva, etc. architectural influences from abroad (Afghanistan, E-Persia and Central-Asia) Or the Persian influences through Muslim rulers from Afghanistan, Multan and Mansura before the rise of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

India had and has a recognized international reputation for constructing buildings. They had the know how, the Shastras, the Acharyas and the Shilpins. Something every Muslim invader recognized, especially from the Turko-Afghan raids and invasions on.



Muslim invaders, whether Turki, Turko-Afghan or Afghan, especially in the initial years were military men and conquerors, not builders. They didn't have the skills or masons to erect palaces. The easiest way of claiming buildings was to clear Hindu temples and palaces from icons and images, fix the Qibla, shout from the roof (original practice of muezzin), and the job was done. The buildings which were too difficult to convert into a Muslim appreciated structure were really destroyed, the rest were converted. The standard formulation is always something like destroying the temples and erecting mosques on the same spot. Which has to be understood properly: the temples were desacrated, stripped off their Hindu identity (idols, images, etc.) and thus ready to get a mosque identity. And thus was born 'Muslim architecture' in history books, started with Fergusson, with his idiotic Pathan architecture and Saracenic architecture. (rightly criticised by Havell and others)



The Timurid kings especially may have started with claiming architectural skills and have started building many structures. The aim was always to be the greatest amongst (Muslim) rulers, not only as a conqueror, but also as a builder. But, starting from Timur on, they couldn't do without Indian masons, which is clear from Timur's autobiography:

I ordered that all the artisans and clever mechanics, who were masters of their respective crafts, should be picked out from among the prisoners and set aside, and accordingly some thou­sands of craftsmen were selected to await my command. All these I distributed among the princes and amírs who were present, or who were engaged officially in other parts of my dominions. I had determined to build a Masjid-i jámi' in Samarkand, the seat of my empire, which should be without a rival in any country; so I ordered that all builders and stone­masons should be set apart for my own especial service.

NOTE: The sentence "I had determined to build a Masjid-i jámi' in Samarkand, the seat of my empire, which should be without a rival in any country" became with superlative forms the standard formulation of especially Mughal kings.

See what the Ain-i Akbari says about Akbar's achievement: "His Majesty has built a fort of red stone, the like of which travellers have never recorded." The greatness as political power of a Timurid king had to be equal to his greatness as (religious) 'architect'.



An important point to remember is that the whole historical and archaeological description of the Delhi kingdom and Mughal period is principally and substantially built around testimonies of Muslim chronicles. A look in their chronicles will certainly reveal their biased approach and some clear lies. The Packhum site of translated Persian works of Muslim times gives a good starting point for further research.



What Hindus do know, but some apologist authors of India and abroad: The Hindus of all Panthas or any non-Muslim had to suffer humiliation and execution, abduction of their children (especially daughters) and female members, etc. Hindus for whom religion was acentral part of their lifes, couldn't go to their places of worship.

If any apologisy should doubt this, he should remember 'farmans'like this of 'protection' through Zar-i Zimmiya and Jizya taxes:

FUTUHÁT-I FÍROZ SHÁHÍ OF SULTÁN FÍROZ SHÁH: 11. The Hindus and idol-worshipers had agreed to pay the money for toleration (zar-i zimmiya), and had consented to the poll tax (jizya), in return for which they and their families en­joyed security. These people now erected new idol temples in the city and the environs in opposition to the Law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be tolerated. Under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices, and I killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolished.

Even then a Hindu was a victim of harassments.



But, the (inter)national Muslim lobby in academic circles is very strong, with powerful funding organizations (Agha Khan, etc.). Thus, it will be hard to get a proper description of India when the Islam got hold ob the subcontinent. Not only architecture etc. are kidnapped, but it is a huge task to call a spade a spade: Muslim atrocity and lies in the past and present are ignored in the name of communalism etc. Hindu's are sacrificed because of this apoligist mentality. I haven't seen any Indian movie or documentary really depicting the Muslim horrors.



We have to start from 'scratch' to unravel the achievements during the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal periods.