10-05-2010, 01:31 AM
Thank you, Ramana. The start of the blog is ok now. As I am still producing more posts than I thought.
I believe that Qutbuddin demolished perhaps the entrance, but for sure the amalaka/shikhara of the Vishnu Hari = Rama Mandira.
Babur didn't construct the three domes, that was repaired by Hindu masons in the Sultanate period. Babur could never have built a mosque from scratch or ruins, neither the three domes in less than 4,5 months (april 2 till august 18)!! He had also to fight Pathans and Hindus within this period before he could lay his destructive hands on the temple.
All he could have done was desecrating (breaking idols, killing cows etc.), damaging (removing paintings and ancient inscriptions) and repair it as a new symbol of the might of Islam.
The three domes belong to one of the classic type of Hindu domes: the non-bulbous stupa-like, semi-circular dome. In this case a Triratna Stupin or triple dome variant. With of course the standard Padmapatra on top with the integral Hindu spire.
There are two possibilities for the period of reparations:
1. It is possible that Jayacchandra Gahadavala's son Harishchandra had ordered for the reparation and three-domed structure. Despite the loss and death of Jayachandra and the destructions following this defeat, Qutbuddin couldn't control the Gahadavala kingdom completely. His power was not paramount.
Harishchandra was still in charge in 1197 of the former kingdom, with Kannauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur, and which must have included Ayodhya too. Kannauj remained under a Hindu raja till Adakamalla, successor to Harishchandra. These successors to Jayachandra could retain their kingdom due to paying tribute. Till Iyaltimish defeated the independent powers (through his son Nasiruddin Mahmud)
From: Sculptures of Ganga-Yamuna Valley by M.M. Mukhyopadhyaya, p. 10-11.
Between Iyaltimish and Timur's raid is a turbulent subperiod, in which either Ayodhya may or may not have been harrassed. It was Balban who divided the former Kannauj kingdom in more parts to crush the many war-looking independant Hindu forces. But no Sultanate court writer mentions Ayodhya. I have not studied this period deeply w.r.t. Ayodhya.
2. The reparations were done shortly after 1398 when Timur crushed the Delhi Sultanate power. I believe that Ayodhya was definitely out of reach and scope of the weak Delhi Sultans in the period of 1398 to Lodi times shortly before Babur's raid.
Some scholars say that the style of architecture of the three domes resembles that of the 14th century, thus of Tughluq one. But, since I have discovered that most Delhi Sultanate period claims of construction are based upon loose sand, and at least the masons were all Hindu, this clearly goes contrary to attributing it to a creation of Muslims. Whether the domes were rebuilt in the 13th or 14th century doesn't make any difference. It is in the indigenous style, in this case of the Gangetic, by indigenous masons.
The standard works have a standard consensus that every North Indian secular or religious structure standing and thus not destroyed during the Sultanate period, was a Muslim creation from scatch or one by major conversion. This is, as I have demonstrated many times, completely wrong.
I believe that Qutbuddin demolished perhaps the entrance, but for sure the amalaka/shikhara of the Vishnu Hari = Rama Mandira.
Babur didn't construct the three domes, that was repaired by Hindu masons in the Sultanate period. Babur could never have built a mosque from scratch or ruins, neither the three domes in less than 4,5 months (april 2 till august 18)!! He had also to fight Pathans and Hindus within this period before he could lay his destructive hands on the temple.
All he could have done was desecrating (breaking idols, killing cows etc.), damaging (removing paintings and ancient inscriptions) and repair it as a new symbol of the might of Islam.
The three domes belong to one of the classic type of Hindu domes: the non-bulbous stupa-like, semi-circular dome. In this case a Triratna Stupin or triple dome variant. With of course the standard Padmapatra on top with the integral Hindu spire.
There are two possibilities for the period of reparations:
1. It is possible that Jayacchandra Gahadavala's son Harishchandra had ordered for the reparation and three-domed structure. Despite the loss and death of Jayachandra and the destructions following this defeat, Qutbuddin couldn't control the Gahadavala kingdom completely. His power was not paramount.
Harishchandra was still in charge in 1197 of the former kingdom, with Kannauj, Jaunpur and Mirzapur, and which must have included Ayodhya too. Kannauj remained under a Hindu raja till Adakamalla, successor to Harishchandra. These successors to Jayachandra could retain their kingdom due to paying tribute. Till Iyaltimish defeated the independent powers (through his son Nasiruddin Mahmud)
From: Sculptures of Ganga-Yamuna Valley by M.M. Mukhyopadhyaya, p. 10-11.
Between Iyaltimish and Timur's raid is a turbulent subperiod, in which either Ayodhya may or may not have been harrassed. It was Balban who divided the former Kannauj kingdom in more parts to crush the many war-looking independant Hindu forces. But no Sultanate court writer mentions Ayodhya. I have not studied this period deeply w.r.t. Ayodhya.
2. The reparations were done shortly after 1398 when Timur crushed the Delhi Sultanate power. I believe that Ayodhya was definitely out of reach and scope of the weak Delhi Sultans in the period of 1398 to Lodi times shortly before Babur's raid.
Some scholars say that the style of architecture of the three domes resembles that of the 14th century, thus of Tughluq one. But, since I have discovered that most Delhi Sultanate period claims of construction are based upon loose sand, and at least the masons were all Hindu, this clearly goes contrary to attributing it to a creation of Muslims. Whether the domes were rebuilt in the 13th or 14th century doesn't make any difference. It is in the indigenous style, in this case of the Gangetic, by indigenous masons.
The standard works have a standard consensus that every North Indian secular or religious structure standing and thus not destroyed during the Sultanate period, was a Muslim creation from scatch or one by major conversion. This is, as I have demonstrated many times, completely wrong.