Sambodhi 2011 Vol 34

Author(s): Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 48

M. A. Dhaky
SAMBODHI
they should be in a Hindu structure. The three jangha registers collectively forming the shaft have a sort of flutings, a feature not found in the Hindu architecture and on whose significance we will enlarge upon soon. The madalas supporting the khuracchädya of the entablature is a feature rather of the 15th century temples than of the earlier ones, but the elements as such were earlier known, in a different context though.28 The prahāra, too, is a component to be found in an identical position in Western Indian Hindu temples. Minaret's second storey, too, corresponds to the second storey encountered in larger temples, though the mouldings used here differ from those in the Hindu temples and the storey concept is only symbolic, not functional. The third storey is smaller, further constricted and reduced in height, consisting as it is of only two elements, the antarapaa and the minor khuracchädya as noticed in the foregoing. At the finishing point, the architect is faced with a problem: He knows what the elements of the crowning part in a Hindu sacred building are, and which must follow suit in view of his using Hindu architectural forms; and yet he has to make it clear that the structure he wants to design is Islāmic. To resolve therefore this dilemma, he places a miniature replica of the conventional minār and grafts the customary amalasāraka of the Hindu temple with the minārand ends with the kalaša, the sacred pitcher-finial of the Hindu buildings, for finial no better than that could be conceived in the Indian context.,
The Brahmanical elements, though freely used (and in an orderly sequence to be sure) in this pair of minarets, do not result in a structure that is Hindu either in manifest semblance or in feeling. The secret of this phenomenon may be sought in the combination of three factors, each serving the other in the realization of the same objective. First, the overall circular plan and elevation, rather unknown in this manner in Hindu architecture: The medieval Hindu architecture mainly employed paralleopipes and cubes29 and the major curved masses, organic more than geometric, come in the apexial part of the superstructure. Second, the condensation of mass resulting in slenderness in these minarets, of the kind unknown in the Hindu monumental architecture, whether functional, or symbolic. Third, the Hindu elements, though present, are conceptually subordinated to the Islāmic proper in that what actually dominates and ultimately determines the character is, in this case, the shaft with its prominent flutings. This is a sort quite foreign to Indian wall surfaces, and its place of origin is, as we will have seen, not India.
The minaret's shaft creates an illusion of an Ionic or a Corinthian column; but the flutings here are triangular in section with blunt tops and from a closer quarter differences in minutiae between this and the typical Hellenic become more obvious. Where, then, do we with such a shaft treatment? The Ajmer minarets (and for that matter the Qub which they copy) differ from the Dholkā instance in three respects: First, the batter: Second, they are not provided with a base:30 Third, there are no true flutings but what is encountered there is stellate corners (pallavīs) alternating with the rounded corners (vrtta-karņas). There is no parallel in India, even in the Islāmic context