The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.s1.2

Language: English

v3.c30.s1.2.1

Thrice conquered by the Arabs in the eighth and ninth centuries, Multān never again reverted into Indian hands. For a hundred years (a.d. 879–980) it was the capital of an independent Arab State, and from the Arabs it passed in turn to the Karmatians, the Ghaznavids, a second time to the Karmatians, and then to the Ghūrids; after which it was incorporated in the principality of Nāsir-ud-dīn Qabācha and was finally annexed by Iltutmish. From that time onwards it remained feudatory to Delhi, reasserting its independence only between the years 1457 and 1525, when the Langāhs were in power. During these several centuries of continuous Muslim rule, many monuments of note must have been erected in the city. As early, indeed, as A.D. 712 a mosque with minarets is said to have been built by Muhammad ibn Qāsim, and in 985 we hear of the far-famed temple of Āditya, the Sun-God, being demolished by the Karmatians and of another mosque being reared on its ruins. But of these early structures no vestige is now left, and, strangely enough, Multān does not possess a single mosque that can be referred to pre-Mughul times. Such monuments—they are only five in number—as are reputed to have been founded before 1526, are all tombs of saints, and two out of the five have been so extensively renovated as to be little more than mere semblances of their former selves, while a third—the shrine of Shāh Yūsuf Gardīzī, said to date from A.D. 1152—has been wholly reconstructed and modernised.

v3.c30.s1.2.2

Yet in spite of their renovations, the two tombs in question are not devoid of interest. One is the resting-place of Bahāu-l-Haqq, who died in 1262, and according to popular belief was built by the saint himself, but it was seriously damaged during the siege of 1849 and since then has been completely restored. The other is the tomb of Shams-ud-dīn (dec. 1276), who is locally known as Shams-i-Tabrīzī, but is not to be confused with the more famous Persian saint of that name. The original structure is said to have been erected by his grandson a generation or more after his death, but having fallen into ruin it was rebuilt in A.D. 1780 by one Seṭh Mihr ‘Alī, a disciple of the family. Both monuments are designed on the same lines and consist of a square tomb chamber, with walls battering on the outside, surmounted by a lofty octagon and crowned by a hemispherical dome. Concealed as their fabrics are beneath modern plaster and glazed tilework, it is not possible to determine how much of them has been restored, but comparing them one with the other, and also with other tombs in the neighbourhood, it can hardly be doubted that their present form is substantially that of the originals and that they represent an earlier stage than the tomb of Shāh Rukn-i-‘Ālam in the development of the local Multān style. In this connexion, the tomb of Shādnā Shahīd, who died a martyr’s death in 1270, is particularly instructive; for though relatively insignificant (it is only 18 ft. 6 in.

v3.c30.s1.2.3

square inside), its original fabric has not been greatly interfered with, and, denuded as it now is of its plaster facing, it affords an excellent illustration of the methods of construction then in vogue. Here also the form of the structure is identical with that of the two tombs already described, though the dome, be it noted, is somewhat lower and more in accord with what we should expect at this period. On the other hand, the tomb of Rukn-i-‘Ālam, the grandson of Bahāu-l-Haqq, which Ghiyās-ud-dīn Tughluq caused to be built between the years 1320 and 1324, exhibits a marked advance on its predecessors. Taken all in all, indeed, this tomb of Rukn-i-‘Ālam is one of the most splendid memorials ever erected in honour of the dead. Its height, measured to the top of its crowning finial, is 115, its diameter 90 feet. Instead of being square, however, as the earlier examples were, the body of the tomb is an octagon—a feature which vastly enhances the symmetry of the whole, while any suggestion of weakness, to which the octagonal form might have given rise, is cleverly avoided by buttressing the outer quoins with engaged and tapering minarets.

v3.c30.s1.2.4

The superb surface decorations which distinguish this building have been widely renovated in the course of the centuries, but, though many of the details have undoubtedly been changed, there is no reason to suppose that their general character—the bands of carved timbering let into the walls, the elaborately chiselled brickwork, and the richly coloured tiling—is markedly different from the original. Compared with the memorials of the Sayyid and Lodī kings at Delhi, or with the still more magnificent tomb of Sher Shāh at Sahsarām, it must be conceded that in the matter of surface ornament and particularly of brilliant colour effects, the tomb of Rukn-i-‘Ālam has the advantage. On the other hand, what it gains in these respects it loses in rhythmic grace and in the poetry of composition. The difference between these monuments is the difference largely between the Persian and the Indian ideals. For despite the presence of many obviously Indian features in the tomb of Rukn-i-‘Ālam, and despite the local character of much of its craftsmanship, based on pre-Muslim traditions, the spirit underlying its design is largely Persian, while that of Sher Shāh's tomb has gone far to becoming Indian.