History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c37.s3: Note—'Kutub Minar'.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c37.s3

Language: English

Note—'Kutub Minar'.

v3.c37.s3.1

Whether the Kutub Minar is by design and construction Mahomedan from the beginning or whether it is a conversion of a pre-existing Kirtisambba into a Minar by Kutub-ud-din and Altamash is a question which has engaged the attention of researchers from General Cunningham down to R. B. Dayaram Sahani, Archaeological Superintendent, Panjab Circle. The theory that it was a pre-existing Kirtistambha was ably put forward some years ago by Mr. Kanwar Sain, M. A. (then Principal Law College, Lahore, now Chief Justice Kashmir State) and is still maintained by him though he accepts the reading of Samvat 1704, instead of 1204, in a Sanskrit inscription on the Minar, now given by Mr. Sahani. It must be noted that besides Arabic texts from the Koran inscribed on the outer surface of the first storey of the Minar, and certain Persian inscriptions mentioning the name of Shihab-ud-din, Ghiyas-ud-din, Qutub-ud-din and Altmash, there are strangely enough some Sanskrit inscriptions and Hindi too, in the several storeys of the Minar; but these are all of later date than 1193 A. D. and need not be much discussed as the only inscription supposed by Mr. Kanwar Sain to be Samvat 1204 old is also now accepted by him to be dated in Samvat 1704.

v3.c37.s3.2

But the chief arguments advanced by Mr. Kanwar Sain still remain. That the Minar is not a Ma'azina or prayer-call tower is accepted by all and is clear as the Minar has no connection with the Kutub mosque. Secondly, there is no Persian or Arabic inscription on the Minar recording its erection by Kutub-ud-din or Altamash though their names merely appear. Thirdly, the Arabic texts appear to have been subsequently inscribed on the outer surface of the lower storey, if critically examined. The original stones appear to have been taken out and replaced as Mr. Beglar, Archaeological Assistant of General Cunningham actually found. There are other indications also that these bands of inscriptions were subsequently put up.

v3.c37.s3.3

It is not possible to give in this note all the pros and cons of this theory, or notice the several inscriptions in Arabic, Persian and Nāgarī and explain them. Dr. Harovitz has published all the Arabic and Persian inscriptions and Gordon Sanderson avoided going into the controversy which he says "is still going on whether the Minar is of Hindu or Mahomedan origin." He remarks, however, that the only claim, on the architectural ground, that the Minar has a Hindu origin viz: that its starlike plan resembles the form of certain old Hindu temples, is weakened by the existence of Minars on a similar plan believed to exist at Ghazni" .........The Sanskrit and Nāgarī inscriptions have not yet all been studied and examined and R. B. Dayaram Sahani is not yet positive about his view. Under the circumstances the question is still not settled.

v3.c37.s3.4

It is, however, necessary to point out that the architectural argument advanced by Mr. Kanwar Sain is based not only on the starlike plan, but on the position of the bands of Arabic letters as also on Mr. Beglar's statement that the stones appear to have been replaced.

v3.c37.s3.5

We may lastly point out that the practice of raising Kirtistambhas is very old in India (vide Raghu canto XII verse*) and we find in a Sena inscription that Lakshmaṇa Sena of Lakhnauti raised (three) Kirtistambhas in Allahabad, Benares and Jagannāth. It is probable that this Kirtistambha upto the first storey was built by Visaladeva Chauhan whose conquest of the whole of Northern India and whose driving out of Mlechhas from Āryāvarta and making it real Āryāvarta (verse already quoted) was memorable and is commemorated on the Siwalik Pillar of Delhi. It is possible that Visala after his arduous conquest of Delhi ("fatigued in the capture of Delhi"-Bijoliya Insc.) raised a column of victory in the Lalkot of Anangapāla. Visala is nearly contemporaneous with Lakshmaṇasena and both were emperors, the firs in the west and the second in the east of Northern India. The latter is recorded, as stated above, to have raised victory pillars and it is plausible to hold that Visala raised a column at Delhi.

v3.c37.s3.6

We have already shown in Chauhan chapter that Visala built the college at Ajmer which was converted by order of Shihabuddin into the present mosque (called Adhai-Dinki-Jhopadi); Visala's inclination to build memorable structures is thus apparent. It is likely, however, that sKirtistambha remained at the finishing of the first storey as he died soon after his conquest. His successor Prithvīrāja II had also a short reign as also Someśvara. Perhaps they might have continued the building even in the days of Prithvīrāja III. After the conquest of Delhi by Kutubuddin he built a mosque by throwing down temples and utilizing their columns. It is natural that he should convert the Kirtistambha of Visala into a Mahomedan Minar and Altamash built the third and fourth storeys and completed it.

v3.c37.s3.7

Whoever the original author was, there is no doubt, we think, on architectural grounds, that the present Minar is an old Kirtistambha converted into a Mahomedan Minar.

v3.c37.s3.8

∗ कीर्तिस्तम्भद्वयमिव तटे दक्षिणे गोचरे च ॥

Linked texts (1)

Raghuvaṃśa — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit