Medieval History

[Guest]

Humayun's tomb in Kilugarhi Indarpat



Introduction

Muslim court writers give statements concerning claims of building acitivities which, if all read carefully, give another picture than what is interpreted by modern scholars and than taken as the standard version as stated in their works.



Many Sultanate and Mughal claims about cities, citadels and forts, and lofty edifices like mosques and palaces turned out to be false. This urges us to reconsider the wrong character and position of Muslim Sultanate and Mughal architecture. One can better speak of Sultanate and Mughal period architecture: created, repaired or converted in these particular periods by Hindus and their Hindu or Muslims patrons, but having its antecedents in pre-Sultanate and/or pre-Mughal period architecture, if not completely new.



Taking for instance the Delhi double metropolis of Dhillipura and Indarpat as a whole, it had many conglomerate cities. Dhillipura had for instance its triple conglomerate cities Shri-Yoginipura (most probably from Shri=Siri to Yoginipura in Mehrauli. I only once found the combination Shri-Yoginipura in Muslim inscriptions) and Indarpat had its Purana Kot-Kilugarhi-Shahjahanabad conglomerate. Delhi had at least seven ancient fort(resse)s, as per testimony of Firuz Shah Tughluq.



Any fortified city has, besides and within its city walls, several city quarters for housing the royal family, noblemen, army personnel, merchants, artisans and civilians. Every quarter had its simple and lofty edifices. This means that for instance Pithauragarh must have had its palaces, lofty mansions for noblemen and rich and common mansions for average civilians and of course public halls and temples. Where are these? We only hear about this and that mosque, Muslim tomb and shrine. I argue, that we have to look for the ancient Rajput period edifices in these converted monuments. (Hindu edifices built in the Sultanate period were converted in a subsequent phase.)



I have demonstrated through the Akbarnama (and the Ain-i Akbari doesn' contradict this), that the Red Badalgarha Fort on the western bank in Agra was not built by Akbar. If he had demolished an old fort and rebuilt one on its spot with red stone, it was on the other, eastern riverside.



Coming to Humayun's mausoleum, standard works state that it was built somewhere in the 1560s and that it was finished in 1570/1. The patron and designer is supposed to have been Hamida Begam, in another case Akbar himself. The architect is not named by Abul Fazl, but by Badayuni as one Mirak Amir Ghiyas.



Claims

As I have argued, Humayun seems to have been finally reburied in a monument with a gilded dome which was a palace in which he resided during the last period of his his life!



In order to get a real picture of what is going on, the information as given by Abul Fazl and Badayuni must be used for a reconstruction of facts.



Badayuni is sometimes more explicit and elaborate than Abul Fazl,when he says:

Maulānā Bīkasī writes that one day the late emperor Humāyūn wrote in his own graceful handwriting over the arch of the porch of his palace in the royal residence of Dihlī the following couplet by Shaikh Āẕarī:—

“I have heard that on this gilded dome

Is written ‘At last the actions of all become praiseworthy.’”

The emperor was fated shortly afterwards to leave this narrow dwelling of deception for the sweet abode of bliss,* and owing to the exigencies of the time that very palace was utilized as his tomb, … (Badayuni: Muntakhab-ut Tavarikh, vol. 3, ch. 29, p. 268. Edited by Dow&Elliot)



Abul Fazl also quotes the couplet by Shaikh Azari, with this remark: “Among other things, he wrote with his own hand on the arch of his portico these opening lines of a poem by Shaikh Āẕarī:” (Akbarnama vol. I, chapter lxii, p. 652)

Now, we can understand why Abul Fazl doesn't mention anything in his Akbarnama, including the last chapter of it called Ain-i Akbari, about any planning and building activity from scratch with reference to the mausoleum. The very monument which became his mausoleum after death, was his palace during lifetime! (This was a general custom of Muslim royalty and noblemen)



It is Badayuni who clearly states that a palace in which he resided was turned into his tomb. But, nowhere does Badayuni state that that palace in Indarpat was built by Humayun. There is no claimant of this palace during the Mughal period, thus it must be older than 1526. But no Khilji, Tughluq, Sayyid or Lodi Sultan claims to have commissioned it. There are a few Sultans before the Khiljis.

Abul Fazl states that Sultan Kaikubad (1286-1290) had 'founded' Kilugarhi in Indarpat, close to the Purana Qilah, which had a splendid palace. And he immediately adds that the last resting-place of Humayun is connected to this:

Muizz ú'd dín Kai Kubád (1286-9) founded another city on the banks of the Jumna called Kélúkhari. Amír Khusrau in his poem the “Ḳiránu's Sạdain*” eulogises this city and its palace. It is now the last resting-place of Humáyún where a new and splendid monument has been erected. (Ain-i Akbari, Vol. II, Ain xv, Subah of Delhi, p. 278)



The last sentence gives two statements: First, the resting-place is connected to that older palace and city. Second, a new and splendid monument has been erected. This is again a Muslim mode of speech to say that a previous functioning mansion (palace) was converted (erected) in a new functioning one (monument).

The most probable connection of Humayun's palace turned into mausoleum is with Kaikubad's eulogised palace, of which the quoted poem of Amir Khushrau says:

Praise of the city of Dehli, which has three large forts and thirteen gates; … The king rode out from his fortunate palace, preceded by the star-banner and the cow-tail.” His right wing was at Tilpat, his left wing at Indarpat, and the Páígáh-i khás at Sirrí, and his elephants occupied a breadth of three miles at Hápúr. The king mounted his horse and went to Kílokharí to hunt. Praise of the new palace which he built there on the bank of the Jumna, and a description of the festivities he enjoyed there, and the charms of the season of autumn. (D&E's History of India: Kiran-us Sa'dain, the poem in which Khusrú celebrates the meeting of Sultán Kai-kubád, with his father, Násiru-d dín, Sultán of Bengal. This poem was completed in Ramazán 688 H. = September, 1289 A.D.).

But, besides Amir Khushru's statement, here too there is no proof that Kaikubad's palace was built by him. No architect of that time could have built the gigantic palace complex within 3 years: Kaikubad ruled in a turbulent time with Mughal threats from 1286 to 1290. Amir Khushru had finished his poem in 1289.



As no other Mamluk Sultan is connected with Kilugarhi and its palace, the origin must be looked for in Hindu circles. This is concerning Kaukubad's palace.

For Humayun's palace on the other hand, depending on its identity with Kaikubad's palace or not, there are three possibities: It was built by wealthy Hindus in Sultanate period between 1206 and 1286. Or it was built in the Rajput period during the last dynasty of Indarpat from Prithviraja to Yashapala, but with influence of Hindu masons who had worked under Ghaznavid patrons.

But if the two palaces are not related, the most probable date of construction must be in the Lodi period when the royal seat became Agra (from 1504 on). It could also have been built during Suri interregnum. Wealthy financers (Agrawalas?) and Hindu masons (Gaur community) may have been responsible.



Anyway, the palace turned into a mausoleum is several centuries older than Humayun, and it was not certainly not a Mughal edifice.



Conversion

The process and time schedule of converting the palace into a mausoleum is provided by Badayuni and two later writers.

1. Badayuni states that the conversion must have started some 8 or 9 years before its finish in 1570. This gives a starting point of 1562.

2. Sayyid Ahmad Khan in his book Asar-us Sanadid, written in 1846, gives the date of its construction as AH 973 (AD 1565) and this date has been followed by all later writers.

3. But an older manuscript of the Siyar-ul Manazil by Sangin Beg, late 18th century, at present in Delhi's Red Fort Museum, states that the foundation of the tomb was laid in the 14th year of Akbar's reign, that is, 1569.



This gives us three conflicting dates: 1562 as first start, 1565 with the start of construction and 1569 when the foundation was laid. Probably, Mirak Amir Ghiyas was contacted in 1562 by Akbar to start thinking of a mausoleum project. In 1565, shortly after Akbar's visit to Delhi, Mirak may have come to Indarpat after having finished some other project elsewhere to start with the designs and plannings. And finally, in 1569 the real work was executed to be finished in 1570, when Akbar had visited his father's tomb.



This mausoleum, previously a palace was not built by Humayun or any Mughal. Thus, the whole Hasht Bihisht and Char Bagh (in the sense of quadripartite) concepts connected with Mughal or Timurid architecture is based on loose sand. Both concepts are actually based upon ancient Vastushastra principles.



Construction plan

Dr. R. Balasubramanian has demonstrated that the ancient Vitasti unit is being used for the symmetrical planning and execution and not the foreign Gaz. I have found out that the whole garden palace complex is based upon the basic DvipAda, ChatuSHpAda 3-4 units and its developments into 8-9 units and also a PanchapAda unit for the PanchAyatana division of the chambers. Major Vastu Mandalas like Pechaka (4 squares), PITHa (9 squares), MaNDUka (32 squares) and ParamashAyikA (81 squares) can be found in the Humayun complex (as well as other Hasht Bihisht or ASHTapAda monuments like the Taj):



1a. NUMBER 4 division: The whole symmetrical complex consists of 4 grand squares, a grand Pechaka or ChatuSHpAda. b. Number 3 subdivision: Each grand square consists of 3x3 small = 9 big squares, giving a total of 36 small squares.

c. Number 5 macro subdivision: A further symmetrical uneven division is executed when 1 innermost small is split from the other 8 surrounding small squares of each grand ChatuSHpAda. This gives the garden area (4x8 = 32 small squares) split from a central area which is the plinth (a great central square consisting of 4x1 small squares). We now have a total of 5 areas.

d. Number 3 meso subdivision: The great central of the plinth is further divided in 3x3 = 9 meso squares, with the mansion in the central meso square, and the 8 uneven surrounding meso squares forming the PradakSHiNa part of the plinth.

e. Number 5 and 9 micro and mini subdivision: The central mesosquare is on one hand divided in 5 microsquares of 4 surrounding chambers around the sanctum. On the other hand, it is divided in 9 minisquares of 4 corner chambers and 4 entrance halls around the sanctum.



Central to the plan, thus, are the numbers 9, 8, 5, 4 and 3. This number 32 of the garden + 1 great central square is very important in Hindu 'Devatology'. As the central square has the 33rd DevatA and YUpa symbolized by the GarbhagRha with the dome (StUPI) and spire (StUpI-kIla), having as its Pratibimba or physical representation, the plinth with mansion, the 32 DevatAs are symmetrical spread over the 4 grand squares of the garden, with 8 DevatAs per grand square.



2a. NUMBER 3 division: But, dividing the complex in another more symmetrical even way, it gives 9 major squares.

b. Number 3 subdivision: The central major square has the plinth and sanctuary, the eight surrounding major squares give the garden.

c. Number 4 macro subdivision: Each major square consists of 4 minor sqares. Here we have again the number 8x4 = 32 for the garden, and 1x4 representing the 33rd DevatA for the central square or BrahmasthAna. Each of the 8 cardinal points (representing a Vasu) has 4 DevatAs.

d. Number 3 meso subdivision: The great central of the plinth is further divided in 3x3 = 9 meso squares, with the mansion in the central meso square, and the 8 uneven surrounding meso squares forming the PradakSHiNa part of the plinth.

e. Number 5 and 9 micro and mini subdivision: The central mesosquare is on one hand divided in 5 microsquares of 4 surrounding chambers around the sanctum. On the other hand, it is divided in 9 minisquares of 4 corner chambers (KarNa-shAlA or Ayatana) and 4 entrance halls (Bhadra-shAlA or Mukha) around the sanctum (GarbhagRha).



The sanctuary has a PanchAyatana construction with the Ayatanas in an symmetrical attached style (Khajurahu for instance has detached Ayatanas). And it has the ancient ideal Chaturmukha entrances in the four cardinal directions. The mansion has a symmetrical uneven ASHTAshra or octagon shape. And of course, it has the ancient Pancharatna (PanchANDa) domes and ATTAlikas or turrets.



Symbolism of the complex

It is a micro imitation after the macro prototype, as a Pratibimba of the sacred Meru MaNDala in TriviSHTapa Himavat:

- The plinth with mansion represents IlAvRta with Meru Parvata in the centre. This is a grand BrahmasthAna with the major 33rd DevatA as the central YUpa or SthUNa.

- The ChatuSHpAda VATikA represents PRthvI or JambUdvIpa divided in 4 VarSHas separated by the four sacred Hindu rivers which came out of the central IlAvRta with its sacred Meru Parvata. Each four cardinal point represents PRthvI, having its own mini MAnasa Lake dividing that area in 4 mini PRthvI-bhAgas through its streams.

This is the ASHTApAda with the ASHTAvasus or eight VAstupuruSHas and 32 DevatAs.



The Gupta Age Dashavatara temple of Devagarha has this ASHTApAda concept in its ninefold PITHapAda MaNDala, and also a Chaturmukha entrance.

The obsession Hindus have for metrum and symmetry dates from Vedic times. The Yajnikas particularly emphasized the need for proper proportion for the Yajnashala, bricks, their sizes, etc.

The Hindus were master mathematicians, a science needed for the architectural skills of the Sthapati-Sutragrahin-Shilpins. This science went abroad, especially to Central-Asia and Baghdad, later followed by captured craftsmen.



Hindu influence of Ashtapada and Chaturanga also went abroad. These two are quadripartite symmetrical designed boards, representing Hindu concepts, also used in architecture planning. Chaturangana is also a quadripartite concept.



Symmetrical quadripartite were known to South-Asian interconnected cultures, one of the remnants being a pre-Islamic garden of Sigiriya in Shri Lanka.



Conclusion

The palace of Humayun, which was converted in his mausoleum by Mirak Amir Ghiyas (as per Badayuni), is not built by any Mughal Padishah or Sultan. The palace could be as old as 1286 when Kaikubad shifted his residence from Dhilli to Indarpat, partly out of fear of the Mughal threat. And it is through Abul Fazl that we get this connection of Humayun's palace with Kaikubad's.



Humayun did not build the palace he resided in, as he also did not build Indarpat with its citadel either, as standard works want us to believe: Humáyún restored the citadel of Indrapat and named it Dínpanáh (asylum of the faith). (Ain-i Akbari, Vol. II, Ain xv, Subah of Delhi, p. 278). Here we can demolish another standard work myth, from a nearly contemporary source.

This citadel of Indarpat was already mentioned by Firuz Shah Tughluq, and precedes the Sultanate period.

If Kaikubad resided in Kilugarhi, his palace must have been surrounded by walls (this is the case with Humayun's tomb). It was most probably a private riverside garden mansion or palace (like the Taj Mahal was in Agra), close to the royal citadel. Perhaps the area was previously a fortified one in pre-Humayun times. The very name Kilu-garhi denotes a fortified area! And this is a complete indigenous original city-name of Indarpat metropolis, as Kilu is never written as Qilu to give a connection with Qilah.



When this non-Mughal monument was built originally, remains a problem. That it contains Iwans points to a foreign concept, of Persian origin. (unless India had developed its own iwans, for which there is no proof)

- If it is a monument built during the Ghaznavids in Ghazni and Lahore, the Ghaznavids may have transplanted this concept in the minds of Hindu masons returning in Ghaznavid time or fleeing for the Ghurids later. The Iwan concept indicates that the monument could have been built in the 13th century.

- It could also have been a Sultanate period monument, if linked with Kaikubad's palace, it may have been repaired probably during the Lodis when they shifted their capital to Agra, or if not linked with the palace of Kaikubad, it was a new construction most probably during the Lodis (or even Suris).

Anyway, the monument is thus not free from foreign concepts. This is a point we have to keep in mind. Hindu masons working on the basis of Vastushastras could easily apply foreign concepts in their Bhauma and sometimes even Daiva constructions.



A final word on the dome. Unlike all the Hindu and converted Muslim monuments, this mausoleum doesn't have a lotuscapped dome under its finial. But, in my opinion it did have one. Badayuni and Abul Fazl state both that the palace of Humayun had a gilded dome. When it was turned into a mausoleum, the dome lost its gilded section. The missing lotuscap (MahApadmapatra) just below the finial (StUpIkIla) on top of the dome (StUpI) must have been the greatest and most important part of the missing gilded section.



Thus, we really have to reconsider what actually Sultanate and Mughal architecture is. We are actually dealing with Muslim period converted and soberised Hindu edifices originally either from pre-Muslim period or Muslim period. It was built originally by Hindu masons, but the repairing, converting and soberising job was also done predominantly and sometimes solely by Hindu masons.



One ancient type of buildings was called Mahal (as in the Bauddha SAtapula Mahala). That word has an indigenous origin and etymology. It is a derivative of the Sanskrit word MahAlaya = grand mansion/edifice. The odd change of MahAl(aya) with a long -A- into Mahal with a short -a- is not isolated, as another related word has the same change: DevAlaya changes into a further developed Deul, only possible with a preceding development Deval, with a short -a-.



The full credit for monuments and the styles of architecture goes to the imagination of Hindu architects, masons and their Vastushastras (leaving aside the Perso-Arabic and Quranic engravings in converted buildings), whether the patrons were Hindus or even Muslims.