The town of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh has attracted nationwide attention towards itself with the recent Kalki Mandir – Jama masjid controversy. Similar to the controversies surrounding Bhojshala in Dhar and Adhai Din ka Jhopra in Ajmer, this debate has also sparked the age-old temple and mosque argument. The controversies surrounding Ram Janambhoomi and Gyanvapi Mosque were finally concluded through archaeological studies. Similarly, the controversy surrounding Sambhal must be understood archaeologically by keeping aside religious emotions and sentiments.
Post-Independence, in the 19th century, A.C.L. Carlleyle, under the leadership of Alexander Cunnigham of the Archaeological Survey of India, surveyed Sambhal. The antiquity of Sambhal is around 2500 years old based on archaeological evidence. This controversy surrounding temples and mosques is mentioned in the survey report done in the 19th century CE. According to the report, the locals of Sambhal denote this monument as ‘Hari Mandir’; Hari is a synonym of Lord Vishnu. It is interesting to note here that the debate surrounding this monument, being the temple of Kalki, is also related to Bhagwan Vishnu, as Kalki is the 10th avatar of Lord Vishnu according to the Dashavatara. Carlyle also mentions that King Prithviraj of the Chauhan Dynasty renovated this temple. His report refers to this monument as a temple that became a mosque. The report also mentions Hindu iconography sculptures engraved on the temple’s outer stone blocks, which were later used to construct the pavement of the now-present mosque, with the face containing sculptures placed upside down. Carlyle also dug the stairs of Mosques and recovered Hindu iconography sculptures made of red sandstone, one of which was the upper portion of a fluted pillar. Such pillars were prominent in Early Medieval Hindu architecture.
It is also important to note that Dr D.V. Sharma, Former Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, has opined (telephonically shared his view) that “this temple existed since the Gupta Period, as the adhisthana of the temple bearing Gupta features is visible in the present-day mosque and the Gurjara-Pratiharas also constructed an extension of the temple.”
Carlyle also states that the inscription recovered from Mosque bearing the name of Babur is a forgery because it mentions Babur’s name as ‘Shah Jamjah Mohammed Babur’.’ In contrast, his name was ‘Zahiruddin Mohammed Babur’. The local Muslims of this region also support this claim. However, Alexander Cunnigham states this inscription is original because someone named Mir Hindu Beg converted the temple into a mosque. Although Cunningham argues that the inscription is original, he even concludes that the original monument was a temple destroyed to construct a mosque.
Carlyle states that the temple was square in shape plan, and its gateway was towards the Eastern direction. He also opines that upon observing the monument, a clear distinction can be traced between the Hindu art and architecture and the later period Islamic additions.
Therefore, these observations clarify that for a long period – from the Gupta period up until the Gurjara-Pratihara and Rajput periods – this temple was in existence and was built of stone and bricks, which were later converted into a mosque during the early Mughal period as examined by Cunningham. Thus, detailed archaeological excavations are the need of the hour to solve this debate to arrive at a firm conclusion.
Comments