DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0433
Chap. I.
IXTKODUCTORY.
400
argument which, with our present materials, it is difficult to disprove.
My impression, however, is that it does not correctly represent the
true state of the case. That the Moslems did ruthlessly destroy Jaina
temples at Ajmir, Delhi, Canouge, and elsewhere, may be quite true,
hut then it was because their columns served so admirably for the
construction of their uniques. The astvlar temples of the followers
of Siva or Vishnu could only have served as quarries, and no stones
that had been previously used in Hindu temples have been traced to
any extent in Moslem buildings. Even admitting that at Delhi or
Allahabad, or any of their capitals, all Hindu buildings have been
utilised, this hardly would have been the case at such a provincial
capital as Fyzabad, once Ayodhya, the celebrated capital of Dasaratha,
the father of the hero of the 'Bamayana,' but where not one carved
stone or even a foundation can he discovered that belongs to any
ancient building.1 The most crucial instance, however, is the city of
Benares, so long the sacred city, par excellence, of the Hindus, yet, so
far as is known, no vestige of an ancient Hindu temple exists within
its precincts. James Prinsep resided there for ten years, and Major
Kittoe, who had a keener eye than even his great master for an
architectural form, lived long there as an archaeologist and architect.
They drew and measured everything, yet neither of them ever thought
that they had found anything that was ancient; and it was not till
Messrs. Home and Sherring2 started the theory that the buildings
around the Bakariya Kund were ancient Buddhist or Hindu remains,
that any one pretended to have discovered any traces of antiquity in
that city. They certainly, however, are mistaken. Every building
about the Bakariya Kund was not only erected by the Mahomedans,
but the pillars and roofing-stones, with the fewest possible exceptions,
were carved by them for the purposes for which the)- were applied.
They may have used the stones of some deserted monasteries, or other
Buddhist buildings, in the foundations or on their ten-aces, or for
little detached pavilions ; but all the architecture, properly so
called, is in a style invented, or at least introduced by the Pathans,
and brought to perfection under Akhar. That the Moslems did
destroy Hindu temples may be admitted, but it is not clear that this
was done wantonly. In all the instances which are authenticated, it
1 ' Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyza-
bad,' by P. Carnogy, Luoknow, 1870.
Gen. Cunningham attempts to identify
the various mounds at this place with
those described as existing in Saketu
by the Buddhist Pilgrims ('Ancient
Geography of India,' p. 401, et scqq. :
' Archa>ological Reports,' vol. i. p. 293,
ct seqq.). The truth of the matter, how-
ever, is, that neither Fa Hian nor Hiouen
Thsang were ever near the place. The
city they visited, and where the Tooth-
brush-tree grew, was the present city
of Lucknow, which was the capital of
the kingdom in Sakya Muni's time.
' ' Sacred City of the Hindus,' London,
1868, p. 271, et seqq. ; 'Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xxxiv.
p. 1, et scqq.
IXTKODUCTORY.
400
argument which, with our present materials, it is difficult to disprove.
My impression, however, is that it does not correctly represent the
true state of the case. That the Moslems did ruthlessly destroy Jaina
temples at Ajmir, Delhi, Canouge, and elsewhere, may be quite true,
hut then it was because their columns served so admirably for the
construction of their uniques. The astvlar temples of the followers
of Siva or Vishnu could only have served as quarries, and no stones
that had been previously used in Hindu temples have been traced to
any extent in Moslem buildings. Even admitting that at Delhi or
Allahabad, or any of their capitals, all Hindu buildings have been
utilised, this hardly would have been the case at such a provincial
capital as Fyzabad, once Ayodhya, the celebrated capital of Dasaratha,
the father of the hero of the 'Bamayana,' but where not one carved
stone or even a foundation can he discovered that belongs to any
ancient building.1 The most crucial instance, however, is the city of
Benares, so long the sacred city, par excellence, of the Hindus, yet, so
far as is known, no vestige of an ancient Hindu temple exists within
its precincts. James Prinsep resided there for ten years, and Major
Kittoe, who had a keener eye than even his great master for an
architectural form, lived long there as an archaeologist and architect.
They drew and measured everything, yet neither of them ever thought
that they had found anything that was ancient; and it was not till
Messrs. Home and Sherring2 started the theory that the buildings
around the Bakariya Kund were ancient Buddhist or Hindu remains,
that any one pretended to have discovered any traces of antiquity in
that city. They certainly, however, are mistaken. Every building
about the Bakariya Kund was not only erected by the Mahomedans,
but the pillars and roofing-stones, with the fewest possible exceptions,
were carved by them for the purposes for which the)- were applied.
They may have used the stones of some deserted monasteries, or other
Buddhist buildings, in the foundations or on their ten-aces, or for
little detached pavilions ; but all the architecture, properly so
called, is in a style invented, or at least introduced by the Pathans,
and brought to perfection under Akhar. That the Moslems did
destroy Hindu temples may be admitted, but it is not clear that this
was done wantonly. In all the instances which are authenticated, it
1 ' Historical Sketch of Tahsil Fyza-
bad,' by P. Carnogy, Luoknow, 1870.
Gen. Cunningham attempts to identify
the various mounds at this place with
those described as existing in Saketu
by the Buddhist Pilgrims ('Ancient
Geography of India,' p. 401, et scqq. :
' Archa>ological Reports,' vol. i. p. 293,
ct seqq.). The truth of the matter, how-
ever, is, that neither Fa Hian nor Hiouen
Thsang were ever near the place. The
city they visited, and where the Tooth-
brush-tree grew, was the present city
of Lucknow, which was the capital of
the kingdom in Sakya Muni's time.
' ' Sacred City of the Hindus,' London,
1868, p. 271, et seqq. ; 'Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xxxiv.
p. 1, et scqq.