History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.13

v2.c25.13

The view above proposed for the origin of the style derives considerable support from the mode in which the temples are now found distributed. There are perhaps more temples now in Orissa than in all the rest of Hindustan put together. They are very frequent in Mahârâshtra, and, if we admit the Jains who adopted this style, they are ten times more frequent in Gujarât, Rajputana and the valley of the Narbadâ than in the valley of the Ganges, or in Âryâvarta, properly so called. The first and most obvious explanation of this fact must be that the last-named country has for 600 years been occupied by a Muhammadan empire, and they, hating idolatry and idol temples, have destroyed them wherever they were so absolutely in possession of the country as to be able to do so with impunity. My impression, however, is that it does not correctly represent the whole state of the case. That the Moslims did ruthlessly destroy Jaina and Hindû temples at Ajmîr, Delhi, Kanauj, and elsewhere in northern India, is quite true, but it was, partly at least, because their columns served so admirably for the construction of their mosques. The astylar temples of the followers of Siva or Vishnu could have served principally as quarries, and stones that had been previously used in Hindû temples have not been traced to a large extent in Moslim buildings. But admitting that at Delhi or Allahâbâd, or any of their northern capitals, all Hindû buildings have been utilised, this hardly would have been supposed the case at such a provincial capital as Faizâbâd, once Ayodhyâ, the celebrated capital of Dasaratha, the father of Râma the hero of the Râmâyana, but where little besides a few pillars in Bâbar’s mosque can be discovered that belongs to any ancient building.¹