Research

#ReclaimTemples•Blog•Research

Category: Research

Karimaldin Mosque, a seized Hindu temple of Vijayapura Karnataka

By @Aryabhatti

 “The (Hindu temple) design is to suggest and symbolize the Universe; the site of a temple is laid out in relation to astronomical observations… every stone has its place in the cosmic design… Can we wonder that a beautiful and dignified architecture is thus devised?” – Ananda Coomaraswamy

At the heart of the ancient city of Vijayapura, in Karnataka, rests a large and ancient temple built in the tenth or eleventh century. Vijayapura, founded by the Chalukyas, was known as the Varanasi of the South. As far back as thousand years ago this temple welcomed pious Hindus eager to experience the beautiful Svayambhu (self-arisen) deity of Siddeshwara. The temple is a charming example of Chalukyan architecture and consists of many large magnificently stone-carved pillars of the Chalukyan style, which is easily recognizable and distinct.  There is also a fairly spacious mandapa with friezes that attest to the mastery of the shilpis. For many years this temple was alive with joyous festivals, sacred rituals, yagnas, annadanams (feedings to the poor), Vedic recitations, and classical music and dance.  Like any other Hindu temple, this was a microcosm of the sophisticated culture and society that had built it.  Inside the temple, there is the customary garbhagriha (sanctum sanctorum) but the Svayambhu Siddeshwara no longer resides there, or anywhere else on the temple property.  The explanation is common but disturbing:  the Svayambhu Siddeshwara murti was destroyed in the year 1320 and the temple was pillaged and converted into a mosque by Muslim invaders from the Delhi sultanate per Alauddin Khilji orders.

Karim al-din mosque, a converted 1000 year old Hindu temple

And thus would begin the violent and graphic upheaval and transformation of the thriving city of Vijayapura, where Hindus, Buddhists and Jains freely practiced their religions, into a jarring Frankenstein’s monster-like city, first called Beejnuggar and then finally Bijapur.  The temples were destroyed and mosques erected with their materials, Hindu citizens were slaughtered en masse and the survivors forcibly converted or subjugated as dhimmis first, by the Delhi Sultanate and then, by the equally violent Adil Shahs.  As historian Sita Ram Goel bluntly states: “No ancient temples survive in the city of Bijapur. “ (Goel, 1990)

 

In situ Mandapa of Hindu temple inside the Karim al-din mosque

 

Pillars of demolished Hindu temples used to build Karim al-din mosque

 

Pillars of demolished Hindu temples used to build Karim al-din mosque

In this particular instance, this temple converted to a mosque is named Karim al-din for that general of Alauddhin Khilji who had invaded the city after several unsuccessful attempts.  One of the first things Karim al-din was ordered to do by Khilji was to demolish this and other temples in the city and use the remains to fashion a Jami masjid, or Great mosque of that city. It is evident when seeing the mismatched pillars and other sculptures in the Karim al-din mosque that materials from various different temples were taken and clumsily patched together. This was the usual pattern of the Muslim marauders invading Indian cities, pillaging and destroying their temples and using the materials to ‘build’ their mosques.  All of Bijapur is literally littered with such mosques and Muslim mausoleums that are in fact appropriated temples. The destruction of Hindu temples goes hand in hand with mass killings and conversions of the Hindu inhabitants.

Hindu temple carvings of Kirtimukhas inside Karim al-din mosque

 

Hindu temple carvings inside Karim al-din mosque

Karim al-din mosque’s origins are factually and minutely documented by Henry Cousens as far back as the 1880s. Cousens was the Superintendent for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under the British and he meticulously documented the ancient architectures of Indian cities.

Cousens states:

“Not far from the south-east corner of the Chini Mahal is one of the earliest mosques in Bijapur. It is wholly made up of pillars, beams and cornices, taken from older Hindu shrines.  The porch, in fact, is part of a Hindu temple in situ; it is the hall or mandap, with its pillar and niches, but wanting part of its roof. The shrine, which was built on this hall on the west, has been entirely cleared away, and a through passage thus gained to the courtyard within, the inner doorway, with perforated screen panel on either side of it has been inserted by the Muhammadans.  This space, between it and the next opening, was the antechamber to the shrine of the original temple.  An examination of the ends of the walls will shew how the shrine has been broken away from the rest.” (Cousens, 1889)

1885 photo of Karim al-din mosque taken by ASI Superintendent Henry Cousens when he conducted a detailed investigation of the structure

It is natural for a Hindu to feel a profound sense of loss and indignation that this beautiful temple and the society it nurtured were destroyed and a trophy mosque replaced it. Henry Cousens observations are some of the most officially documented proofs of Muslim appropriation and destruction of Hindu temple property in Bijapur. Ironically, current (non-Hindu) Western and Indian leftist academics have been occupied with re-writing history to reflect their agendas, and are intrusively demanding that the native Hindu feel happy that these bizarre structures were built with the violent annihilation of their most sacred places. White academics and their surrogates insist on imposing their Eurocentric Judeo-Christian viewpoint, negating these atrocities. This racism is deep rooted and permeates most modern discourse on demolished Hindu temples and, for the most part, goes unchallenged.

Recently the government decided that the city of Bijapur once again should be officially known as Vijayapura; the ancient city of victory. No sacred rituals, annadanams or joyous festivals have resumed in the converted temple-mosque of Karim al-din however.

References:

Aiyangar, Krishnaswami.  South India and Her Muhammadan Invaders.  London: Oxford University Press, 1921.

Cousens, Henry.  Bijapur, The Capital of the Old Adil Shahi Kings: A Guide to its Ruins with Historical Outline.  Poona: The Orphanage Press, 1889.

Cousens, Henry.  Bijapur and its Architectural Remains.  Bombay: The Government General Press, 1916.

Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples What Happened to Them Volume II. New Delhi: Voice of India, 1990.

#ReclaimTemples

Destruction of Hindu temples in Goa by Christian fanatics

Article by @OGSaffron

While the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim invaders gets most of the discussion spotlight, and understandably so, an exposition of anti-Hindu iconoclasm by anti-Dharmic forces would remain incomplete if it did not mention the Christian iconoclastic campaigns against Hindu society. Therefore, this brief essay correctly positions Hindu-Christian encounters as not the intercultural meeting of two distributed groups but instead a story of Hindu survival against the crusading spirit of anti-idolatry.

With that in mind, the tragic story of Goa resembles the religious nature characteristic of the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim invaders. Indeed, and much to the chagrin of secular revisionists of Indian history, the story of Hindu survival in Goa against Christian conquistadores is rooted in the intransigence of proselytism, even though secularists would have laymen believe it to be originating from Brahmanical stubbornness that should have otherwise been receptive to the messages of Christ. Or emanating from the impatience of a heathen population already content with their ancestral traditions; or from other re-contextualizations of similar deconstruction.

In truth, the campaign against Hindu heathenry was driven by the old Judeo-Christian hostility against idolatry (Henn, 2014). Such hostility provided Christian conquistadores the perfect theological justification for both colonial conquest and the destruction of Hindu temples (Henn, 2014). In other words, not primarily a political and/or economic justification, but a staunchly religious one, as something contentious secularists purposefully hesitate to categorize. For the Hindus of Goa, this meant a ferocious and humiliating experience of subjugation. By the second half of the sixteenth century, Portuguese-Catholic forces “launched a ferocious iconoclastic campaign against Hindu culture in India that seemed to bring an end to all ambiguities and confusions regarding the identities of gentiles and Christians” (Henn, 2014, p. 40). This ferocious campaign was “directed primarily against Hindu temples and images, and affected above all India’s western coast” (Henn, 2014, p. 40).

Steeped in the old Judeo-Christian hostility against idolatry, and likely against anything outside the Abrahamic fold that embodied a cultural sophistication not sanctioned or approved by monotheistic centralization, the iconoclastic campaign devastated Goa between 1540 and 1560 (Henn, 2014). These two decades were marked by a demoralizing devastation of Hindu Goa; all Hindu temples, shrines, and images were destroyed or removed (Henn, 2014). Furthermore, the performance of public Hindu rituals was banned and actively suppressed (Henn, 2014). By 1600, most Hindus who did not convert to Christianity were either expelled or fled Goa (Henn, 2014).

Like the mosques built on top of destroyed Hindu temples by Muslim invaders, purposefully embodying architectural expressions of conquest over heathenry, so too did the Christian foreign intruders destroy Hindu temples in order to replace them with Christian images and monuments of victory (Henn, 2014). In this regard the destruction of Hindu temples by both Muslim and Christian invaders converge in that their anti-idolatry campaigns go from “a war against images [to] a war between images” (Henn, 2014, p. 40). For Goa, the significance of this change meant that the destruction of Hindu temples was outstandingly systematic, resulting in a drastic alteration of its architectural landscape.

The campaign to eradicate Hindu images was so intense that Portuguese Christians “did not just target singular and outstanding religious landmarks” (Henn, 2014, p. 41). Instead, they “systematically destroyed all Hindu temples, shrines, and images,” replacing them with Christian equivalents, which went on to birth a distinct European-Christian architectural development largely devoid of the previous traditional Hindu form that once ornamented the land praised as the Kashi of Konkan (Henn, 2014, p. 41). To quote the Portuguese poet Camoes, “Goa [was] taken from the infidel [in order to] keep severely in check the idolatrous heathen” (Henn, 2014, p. 40). And Goa was indeed taken from Goan Hindus, their images and monuments destroyed, and their public performance of Hindu rituals banned. In fact, Christian explorers like Afonso de Sousa came to India with premeditated plans to attack and destroy Hindu temples (Flores, 2007; Henn, 2014).

Premeditation of this sort affected even the Hindus of Sri Lanka, another focal point unsurprisingly driven by the old Judeo-Christian hostility against idolatry (Flores, 2007). For example, when Portuguese Christians destroyed the ancient Hindu temples of Tirukkovil and Palukamam, they adversely, and purposefully, affected Shaivism in the region (Flores, 2007). Possessed by the conviction of having an exclusive access to an absolute truth, the meeting of heathenry with monotheistic centralization was usually a history of the former attempting to survive the salvific cruelty of the latter. One may find many other examples from a deeper study of similar interactions. Yet the theme of such encounters, whether they were between Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Christians, remained the same: destruction of heathenry in favor of a fanaticism obsessed with salvific preaching that soon but naturally turned iconoclastic.

Flores, J. (Ed.). (2007). Re-exploring the links: History and constructed histories between Portugal and Sri Lanka. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Henn, A. (2014). Hindu-Catholic encounters in Goa: Religion, colonialism, and modernity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Jama Masjid Ahmedabad, an ancient Hindu temple

Article by Nayandeep

They say to build a new narrative the old narrative has to go,and if the old narrative represents something unmatched far superior then breaking and assimilating it is the only way forward for the one replacing it. The same applies to the history of Hindu Dharma and it’s living islands of history, culture and artistry, primarily it’s ancient temples.
Right from the days of Mohammed bin Qasim to the bigoted Aurengzeb and still continuing in the form of various Jihadi outlets in our present times, one narrative continues incessantly and that’s the destruction of Hindu temples or simply making mosque out of them as and when the numbers and favorable demography dictates. Markandey sun temple in Kashmir, Ram temple of Ayodhya, Vishwanath temple of Varanasi are some of the famous one’s that come to mind apart from the thousands of others that were destroyed. One such living proof of such wanton destruction of Dharma lies in the city of Ahmedabad in Gujarat State of India. Formerly Ahmedabad was known as Karnavati under the benign Rajput rulers and original structure and name of the temple where Jama masjid exists today was Bhadrakali temple. After his victory over the infidels the Sultan Ahmad Shah 1 destroyed the statues and converted once a famous temple dedicated to Goddess Bhadrakali to a Masjid.

Even if one ignores the word and history of the persecuted Hindu’s the very walls and carvings on the pillars supporting the structure are full of idols, animals, serpents and elephant, this very fact goes against the essence of Islam followed by the sultan. Primarily the open space for offering Namaz is crisscrossed by these very same pillars which are built in a typical Hindu way of construction. The question that needs an answer is that why would a Islamist Sultan Ahmed Shah built a mosque with pagan carvings on its pillars and have pillars obstruct the Namaz of the faithful.

 

 

Perhaps the answer lies in the observation of noted researcher P.N.Oak where he delivers an interesting and thought provoking observation where he said that after 35 years meticulous study of history buildings and cities he never believed that among the many invaders, that Sultan Ahmed Shah 1 built Ahmedabad, in his own words he said and I quote “It is easily assumed that Ahmed Shah built Ahmedabad and Tughlaq Shah raised Tughlaqabad. If that were true Allahabad should have been founded by Allah himself and Delhi’s Rashtrapati bhavan by some Rashtrapati”. Among the others who hold the same view is Mr M.k.Aggarwal the writer of the book The Vedic core of human history and truth will be saviour, he clearly claims of the Hindu origin of the Jama Masjid he observes that why would pillars with serpents elephants and fairies which are an anathema to Islam be built in a mosque and that too in middle of prayer halls.

 

Common sense dictates that did the Sultan wanted the faithful to bang their heads or simply took over an ancient piece of artistic beauty and when was unable to match it by his own beliefs he simply did a cosmetic surgery of the temple and called it a masjid but was not able to completely do away with the pillars as the whole structure depended on it.

 

What hope do the Hindus have of reclaiming this Bhadrakali temple? If it’s to be done, the time is now and for that two things have to take place simultaneously, the Slumber and Dhimmitude of the present has to go and Hindu Renaissance and Revival has to be forged.

 

#ReclaimTemples

Destruction of Hindu Temples by Muslim invaders

Article by @OGSaffron

Little discussed or highlighted is the psychosocial aspect that accompanied most of, if not all, the instances wherein Hindu temples were destroyed. As Jonsson (2006) points out: When “Muslim invaders broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan,” they were “displaying the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in [their] encounter with a more refined culture” (p. 86).

Indeed, for the Muslim invaders, the Hindu infidels—these “refined” pagans, the Kafirs—were “heathens, par excellence” (Jonsson, 2006, p. 86). Therefore, how could they build such extravagantly ornamented, finely constructed buildings if they were not Muslim? Are not the infidels supposed to be inferior in every respect to the zealous believer, to those who do not join other gods with the One True God?

When one examines the many architectural remnants that have survived in their “hybrid” form—as even the politically correct archaeologists would have us believe in “fusions” of Dharmic and Islamic “architecture” being congregational and intercultural rather than ferocious and resentful—visible is the mosque type that is the conquest mosque. The foundation of such “hybridity” is not the benign intercultural notion that secular ideologues would have us accept but instead a profound hatred of the Hindu and his place of worship. Almost every “hybrid” expression that has come down to us surviving in the form of the conquest mosque is a religious declaration, through architectural continuity, of Muslim superiority over Hindu heathenry.

To define the common feature of such “hybridity” is to capture the essence of the conquest mosque. Mosques of conquest are “mosques that are all built on the sites of dismantled temples and employ recut columns and other spolia taken from the destroyed monument” (Wagoner & Rice, 2001, p. 90).

To give an example, take for instance the inscription on the eastern gate of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque—a conquest mosque that stands as the “Might of Islam”—which records “that the mosque was built with spolia taken from twenty-seven different temples; these spolia include columns, bracket capitals, ceiling panels, and other decorative members, and the mosque can be seen to be founded on the plinth of one of the destroyed temples” (Wagoner & Rice, 2001, p. 90).

The usage of spolia from destroyed Hindu temples in the construction of conquest mosques, often on the sites of dismantled Hindu temples, is not entirely a matter of convenience and/or intercultural sharing, as secularist and Marxist historians often argue.

On the contrary, conquest mosques project quite vividly “the ghazis’ attitude toward the Hindu majority” based on “the virtues of [their] belief in Islam” where “the need to reinforce the spiritual and political authority of Islam through architecture” is in direct response to “the evils of idolatry and polytheism” (Welch & Crane, 1983, p. 124). Take, for example, Firuz Shah Tughluq’s assertion of Muslim orthodoxy when personally destroying the images of Hindu gods. These images “were burned in a place otherwise reserved for public executions and the punishment of criminals” (Flood, 2002, p. 648). The images of Hindu gods were destroyed, desecrated, or mutilated not only because of anti-heathenry, but also on the little discussed insight that the images represented the potency and purposefulness of a very sophisticated non-Muslim civilization that challenged the religious primacy of an Abrahamic faith whose zealous followers emphasized the superiority of its anti-idolatry creed (Wink, 1997). To render the idols powerless was to wash away the intimidation and shame brought on from encountering a more refined culture.

Therefore, the architectural patronage of Muslim sultans so incessantly praised by the rewriters of history is instead, and can be captured more realistically as, the religious declaration of Muslim supremacy over the nonbeliever, where Islam has been triumphant and idolatry has been subdued (Welch, Keshani, & Bain, 2002, p. 33). After all, “Muslim ghazis had brought the Jihad to India” (Welch et al., 2002, p. 31). And with that came the destruction of places of idol worship, and establishing “the foundation of congregations of Islam” in systematic fashion (Welch et al., 2002, p. 33).

To such a zealous mind, experiencing the existence of sophisticated heathenry, represented herein by the Hindu architectural tradition, was discontenting. As Lord Byron (1847, p. 293) put it: “They have raised a mosque…[and] they are not contented with their own grotesque edifice, unless they destroy the prior and purely beautiful fabric which preceded, and which shames them and theirs for ever and ever.”

Byron, G. (1847). Letter to John Murray on the Rev. W. L. Bowles’s strictures on the life and writings of Pope. In F. G. Halleck (Ed.), The works of Lord Byron; In verse and prose (p. 293). Hartford, CT: Silas Andrus & Son. (Original work published 1821)
Flood, F. (2002). Between cult and culture: Bamiyan, Islamic iconoclasm, and the museum. The Art Bulletin, 84(4), 641–659. http:/dx.doi.org/10.2307/3177288
Jonsson, D. (2006). Islamic economics and the final jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist Islamist alliance. Maitland, FL: Xulon Press.
Wagoner, P., & Rice, J. (2001). From Delhi to the Deccan: Newly discovered Tughluq monuments at Warangal-Sultanpur and the beginnings of Indo-Islamic architecture in southern India. Artibus Asiae, 61(1), 77–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3249963
Welch, A., & Crane, H. (1983). The Tughluqs: Master builders of the Delhi Sultanate. Muqarnas, 1, 123–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1523075
Welch, A., Keshani, H., & Bain, A. (2002). Epigraphs, scripture, and architecture in the early Delhi Sultanate. Muqarnas, 19, 12–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1523314
Wink, A. (1997). Al Hind, the making of the Indo-Islamic world: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th–13th centuries (Vol. 2). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Donate to #ReclaimTemples