Talk:Shahi Jama Masjid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of sourced content

• Alam, Muzaffar; Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (2007). "Acculturation or Tolerance?: Inter-faith Relations in Mughal North India, c. 1750". Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. 33: 441, 445–446.
• Naqvi, Naveena (2020-10-01). "On the road: The novice munshi's view of inter-imperial North India". The Indian Economic & Social History Review. 57 (4): 495. doi:10.1177/0019464620948416. ISSN 0019-4646.

Are these sources unreliable? If not, the content sourced to these sources cannot be removed. I can source a summary of Carlleyle's views to similar sources if you wish.

Further, why did you remove the photograph and the caption or the architectural details sourced from Asher and Crane - do you dispute the accuracy?

Now, to respond to your edit summary:

> The primary sources (Baburnama and inscriptions) and scholarly research, including works by Howard Crane, confirm that the mosque was purpose-built by Babur in 1526-27.

What I wrote did not claim otherwise and I agree that there is absolutely no doubt that the mosque was built by Babur. On an aside, Baburnama has nothing on the mosque.

> No credible evidence supports the assertion of a prior Hindu temple on the site. Claims relying on 19th-century reports or local traditions lack substantiation in historical records.

Mukhliṣ' Safarnama (c. 1750) or Aḥmad ʿAlī's Kawāʾif al-Sair (c. 1780) are neither "19th-century reports" nor "local traditions". Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Muzaffar Alam use the example of the mosque to drive their thesis about communal relations under the Mughals!

Also, in all probabilities, Crane, not being a South Asianist, didn't know about Mukhliṣ' Safarnama or Aḥmad ʿAlī's Kawāʾif al-Sair and (rationally) didn't take the ever-expanding Hindu victimhood very seriously. Further, scholars of Islam in South Asia like Asim Roy (and Alam) accept that the Sambhal Mosque was constructed by converting a temple.

Upd Edit (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Cerium4B, you cannot continue to edit war and remove sourced content without participating in a substantial discussion. Upd Edit (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I have reinstated the content. Cerium4B, Aliyiya5903, reverts need to be policy-based, and you need to cite the policy per which you are reverting. For anything more complicated, you need to explain your reasons here. As far as I can see, your objections are merely an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I had clearly provided my reasons in summary which emphasized that the claim of a Hindu temple existing prior to the mosque is not supported by credible primary sources. While works like Mukhliṣ' Safarnama and Aḥmad ʿAlī's Kawāʾif al-Sair offer valuable insights into the historical context and communal relations during the Mughal period, they do not provide concrete evidence of a pre-existing temple on the site. The sources user cited primarily reflect local beliefs and traditions, which the authors have used as the basis for their historical accounts. While these accounts are interesting, they do not meet the standard for verifiable, primary evidence needed to substantiate the claim.

Additionally edits have included biased language that suggests the mosque was built over a converted Hindu temple. This type of language is not appropriate for an article dedicated to the mosque itself and could mislead readers. If there is a need to explore the existence of a temple on the site prior to the mosque, it would be more suitable to create a separate page that focuses on that topic. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, note that Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORed.

When you want to contest sourced content that has been added to the article, your objections need to be specific, and need to address those sources and that content. You can;t make blanket statements like "no credible evidence exists". See WP:VNT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are expected to cover everything reliable sources say about a topic. The talk of creating a "separate page" comes up only when the page becomes too large and a WP:SPINOUT is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aliyiya5903 Original research is not permitted. All of these are your personal opinions and are not cited to reliable sources:

• However, these claims are not supported by primary evidence.
• Importantly, Carlleyle did not provide conclusive evidence for this assertion,
• it is problematic to attribute a religious identity to building materials such as bricks and stones, which have no inherent religious significance
• however, he [Ram Nath] does not provide any concrete evidence to substantiate this assertion.

Upd Edit (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not quite correct. As WP:NOR says, This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.. But the problem for me is that the objections are not specific enough for me to evaluate them. Aliyiya5903 seems to be believe that his own judgement should carry. That is not the case. Wikipedia is written through editor WP:CONSENSUS. So it is their job to provide enough information to convince the rest of us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 These lines, I quoted, were added by Aliyiya5903 to the article. I am not commenting on their talk page comments. Upd Edit (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Your presentation of sources seems to imply that the mosque was indeed a temple, but this assertion is based on assumptions and interpretations of local lore, with limited scholarly evidence available online. Many sources contradict each other, and not much has been written about the mosque's real history by scholars.

1. Abul Fazl mentions a "temple in present form," which was written long after the mosque's construction, suggesting that it could refer to separate structures rather than the same one.
2. Ānand Rām Mukhliṣ refers in his Safarnama, to a mosque in Garhmukteshwar, located over 60 km from Sambhal, which is not directly associated with the mosque in question.
3. Campbell argues that Muslims only acquired the site in the 1850s and claims that the structure was originally built as a temple by Prithviraj Chauhan.
4. Local lore drawn from the Skanda Purana connects Sambhal to Kalki's prophesied birthplace, but this is purely mythological and not based on historical evidence related to the mosque's origins. Given the limited and often contradictory sources, it's important to distinguish between historical facts and local myths

Aliyiya5903 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Fazl was compiling from existing sources and he was not abreast of the latest developments; see Alam's other works on Fazl's historiography. I CITED A SOURCE (Subrahmanyam & Alam) which points to Fazl's work while discussing Mukhlis' reaction to the mosque.

Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Muzaffar Alam, and Naveena Naqvi disagree with you. I HAVE CITED MULTIPLE SOURCES.

Carlleyle was wrong on that aspect.

What is the relevance of the Skanda Purana? If you have PROPER SOURCES, you can add it. Upd Edit (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You still can't even decide whether the temple belongs to Shiva or Vishnu. 😅 Aliyiya5903 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to believe that I care about the temple. I do not and my attitude is similar to Ānand Rām Mukhliṣ. What was a place of worship has continued to be one.

That said, you can refer to Subrahmanyam & Alam's footnote 38 in p. 445 (more clarified in Subrahmanyam's From Tagus to the Ganges (fn 34; p. 95)): "For an earlier brief mention of the Har Mandal, see the late sixteenth-century account of Abu'l Fazl, A'in-i Akbari, tr. H. S. Jarrett, revised Jadunath Sarkar, 3 Vols, reprint, Delhi, 1989, Vol. II, p. 285. For details of the mosque, also see Catherine B. Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, The New Cambridge History of India, I.4, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 28-9. Asher follows Jarrett in misreading 'Hara' (Shiva) as 'Hari' (Vishnu)." Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You removed the details where I mentioned pro-Hindutva advocate Hari Shankar. I had provided three sources: one confirming who filed the petition and two that verifying his Hindutva advocacy. By removing these, it seems you are focusing more on the temple and less on presenting the facts. Good luck with shaping your narrative—sooner or later, there will be more reliable scholarly sources available about the site's origin. Keep shaping the narrative until then. Also don’t forget to fix this. _{Local Hindus claim that they have always held the mosque to be Harihar Mandir} Aliyiya5903 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not oppose mentioning Hindutva. For example, a local far-right Hindu organization appears to have manufactured consent about the need of "recovering" the temple. Such details can be added.

Please read the sources I added to the article. I have my sympathies but the belief that the mosque sat atop a temple is not new at all, as Alam, Subrahmanyam, and Naqvi document. What is new is Hindutva turning into a grievance industry to persecute Muslims. Similarly, going by the architecture, it is not far-fetched to speculate that the mosque can actually be a converted temple. And absent excavations, which I do not wish under any circumstances, scholars will have hardly anything new to say.

And I do not understand what's there to fix about the line. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Painting does not show a mosque

https://x.com/TrueIndology/status/1863831657351889372 - Debunked. It was not a mosque. 128.214.129.85 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about "TrueIndology", but I too could not match the structure in the painting with the Shahi Jama Masjid. Many of these paintings from British era get wrongly labelled by curators that don't know what is what. There was also a "Babri Masjid painting" that floated around for a long time before somebody conclusively argued that it wasn't the Babri Masjid. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This section of the Wikipedia article on Caunter and Losty (2019) provides reasons about not trusting the Oriental Annual to any extent. I took a quick look and Thomas Daniell (who titled the sketches in ink) noted it to be of a mosque while William (who titled the sketches in pencil) noted it to be the tomb of Babur; both were in agreement about the structure being at the site of an earlier Hindu temple. Now that William's diary has nothing of interest, I won't be surprised if the brothers made the story up at a later date. Upd Edit (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I propose that the painting be removed unless there is a WP:HISTRS that claims that it is a representation of our mosque. If there is, it should be attributed to that source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No.

At Sumbul (where they camped 19th-20th) there is a massive mosque on a great mound in the centre of the town, forming a landmark for miles around. It was built by Babar, but he was not buried there, as William notes. Its imposing structure has a lofty gateway flanked by pillars. (Sumbal, dated March 20th, S.A. no. 20a; Amroan Gate, S.A. no. 2; Tomb of Babar, O.A., 1838; South Gate of Sumbal, M.L.).

Quoted from Sutton, Thomas (1954). The Daniells: Artists and Travellers. London: The Bodley Head. p. 45. Upd Edit (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What makes this a WP:HISTRS? And where is the connection to the painting? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this not a reliable source? According to Google Scholar, it has been cited about 30 times by others including Bernard Cohn. Upd Edit (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS says that sources about history should be historical scholarship, or at least peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Too much nonsense passes for history otherwise.

From what I can see three paintings/sketches are cited, none of which is labelled as a mosque, and Sutton's text says something he thinks is significant about "Sumbul". But there is no connection between the description and the sketches. It is WP:SYNTHESIS to interpret any of these sketches as depicting a mosque. And, the present one doesn't look anything like a mosque. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

> Archer, Mildred (1969). British Drawings in the India Office Library, Vol. 2: Official and Professional Artists. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office. p. 574, 580

Did you access this citation? Do you believe that the picture we have in our article do not correspond to the image referenced in Entry#180? In that case, I am willing to check again (and remove the image pending verification).

Or do you believe Sambhal had numerous mosques which were believed to be on the site of Hindu temples and hence, until some scholar confirms the exact equivalence, we cannot be using the image described in Entry#180? I find such an argument to be dubious because sources record no other disputed mosque in the region and the district Gazetteer is unequivocal about our subject being the most prominent mosque in the town, having occupied the highest coordinates! Upd Edit (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I think that you've missed my reply. Upd Edit (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The new painting you (or somebody) added is clear enough. So this dispute can be regarded as closed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A Sambhal Mahatmya in Skandapurana?

There is a manuscript from 1762 and a slightly different recension from 1874. The latter featured a new chapter titled Sambhalesapradakshinavarnane harimandirapradakshinavarnana whose introduction can perhaps be explained by the soon-to-be-waged legal battle :-) Notably, the latter appears to have been edited and translated into Hindi. Upd Edit (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Tradition

@Ratnahastin, Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Muzaffar Alam do not believe that the tradition of Kalki-incarnating-in-Sambhala is "irrelevant" to the mosque. Why do you? Upd Edit (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing in that section that connects this mosque with hindu mythology. That section belongs on Sambhal, not here. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, have you read the chapter by Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Muzaffar Alam? Do they mention Fazl's description of Sambhal while discussing the mosque? Or do you claim that I am fabricating sources? Even Asher writes,

Even though the Sambhal mosque was renovated at least twice in the seventeenth century, enough of its original state remains to show that the plan and general appearance anticipate Babur's Panipat mosque commenced the following year. The size (40.5 by 12.4 meters), too, anticipates the scale of Babur's imperial mosque, thus making this mosque at Sambhal the largest one constructed in the Delhi region since Timur's sack of that city in 1398. This mosque is situated high on a hill and dominates the city for a considerable distance. According to Hindu lore that was known to the Mughals, the tenth and last incarnation of Vishnu will appear in Sambhal at the end of this era (yuga).

So, she too believes the myth to be relevant to this "mosque" or do you (again) feel that I am misrepresenting sources? I am amenable to shifting some of the content to footnotes but it is impossible to even argue that we have the privilege of having a pristine article on the mosque untethered from anything Hindu. Upd Edit (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You should read the quote you have posted, she does not claims that this myth is related to this Mosque, this is more relevant to the town of Sambhal. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

She is dicussing the mosque in the paragraph. Why will she discuss the city, that too in a single line and in the same paragraph, while discussing Babur's mosques? Subrahmanyam's footnote reads:

... For details of the mosque, also see Catherine B. Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, The New Cambridge History of India, I.4, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 28-9. Asher follows Jarrett in misreading 'Hara' (Shiva) as 'Hari' (Vishnu).

Perhaps, Subrahmanyam (and Alam) are as clueless as me? @Kautilya3: I believe these arguments are not made in good faith and I will like to hear your opinion on this issue. Upd Edit (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You are trying to find a connection when there is none, anyone with basic understanding of English can understand that it was merely a passing mention about the significance of this town in Hindu mythology.

"According to Hindu lore that was known to the Mughals, the tenth and last incarnation of Vishnu will appear in Sambhal at the end of this era (yuga)"

Where has she connected this mosque to this Hindu myth in this quote you posted? - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I lack skills in "basic English" :-(

I appreciate though how you continue to ignore Subrahmanyam/Alam. Shall I quote Subrahmanyam once again? Upd Edit (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Ratnahastin, you cannot give flippant replies to stonewall a discussion, and then shy away; I see that you continue to edit without engaging in this discussion or the one below. You need to answer (1) whether you have read Subrahmanyam/Alam, (2) whether the content in the source corresponds to my quotes (i.e. whether or not I have misrepresented/misquoted them), and (3) whether they reference Fazl's description of the Hara Mandal and Kalki Avatar in Sambhala while discussing the temple ("Hara Mandal") that was noted to be at the site of the mosque by Anand Ram Mukhlis. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ratnahastin that a section on Hindu tradition in a page on a mosque seems out of place. The temple theory is still vague. Unless it has more substance, the temple's tradition doesn't belong here. Keep it on the backburner for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 We need to get into the specifics:

• Alam and Subrahmanyam note, with no reservations whatsoever, that at least as of the mid-eighteenth century, there was a belief that the mosque stood atop the ruins of Hindu temple and that the Hindus used to frequent the mosque precincts and a well. They also refer to Fazl's invocation of Har-Mandal in Sambhal while describing Mukhlis' account which terms the (lost) temple to be "Har Mandal". It is pertinent to note that the authors are not random academics but holders of endowed chairs at UoChicago and UCLA; they are considered to be among the foremost scholars of early modern South Asia.

• Now, are you opposed to mentioning Fazl's description of Hara Mandal, as Ratnahastin is? My query also applies for Bhandari and Kayath (see "Upcoming Edits" section) If you are opposed to it, I will have to launch a RfC because no scholar has disputed Alam/Subrahmanyam.

• I am amenable to trimming the section on Hindu tradition and shifting it to notes. How does that work for you? I wish to emphasize that the Puranas barely describe Sambhal, much less situate it in a physical geography, pace the recent flurry of RW media coverage but nonetheless, Sambhal was a prominent pilgrimage spot since about 12th century.

Upd Edit (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Carlleyle

The Indian Express, The Dainik Bhaskar, The Outlook and other media organizations find Carleyle's opinions worth mentioning in the context of the mosque. Why don't you? Upd Edit (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop creating many sections, these are poor sources for making any sort of connection to this Mosque. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin, that does not answer my query. Do you claim The Indian Express, Dainik Bhaskar, and Outlook (Indian magazine) are so "unreliable" that they cannot be even used to adjudge the due-ness of content?

Additionally, do you see that Howard Crane references Carleyle and then, repudiates him? As things stood in your version, nobody even suggested that the mosque is anything but a mosque and Crane was fighting with imaginary shadows! Upd Edit (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I will like your inputs here, too. Thanks, Upd Edit (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Carlleyle investigated/surveyd the mosque. It is definitely relevant to the page. It also appears that he documented the local beliefs, which should be mentioned (cautiously) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you. Upd Edit (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So, Kautilya3, do you have any suggestions on improving the section on Carlleyle that was removed by Ratnahastin and CharlesWaine? Else, that no meaningful opposition has been tabled, we can restore this in some time? We do mention Carlleyle's documentation of local beliefs ("Carlleyle alleged local Muslims to have confessed.."). Upd Edit (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have a plan to reorganise the content so that it is less inflammatory. Please be patient! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure :-) But please preserve footnote b; either his local informers were taking him for a ride or it might have been the typical colonial bureaucrat's proclivity to hear what he wanted to hear. Upd Edit (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Longstanding efforts by the Hindu Right at rabble rousing?

V. G. Deshpande, probably among the most rabid communalists in 50s' India, enquiring (Dec' 53) if the Union Government has been aware of the local Muslims making structural changes to the mosque. Obviously, this trivia is undue for the article but I came across this while busy searching for sources on the '78 riot. Upd Edit (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming edits

I will not make any edits to the article until the facile sock puppetry charges and the charges of disruptive editing resolve. So, I will note here about what I plan to add to the article:

• Sujan Rai Bhandari's Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh (1695 CE; half-a-century before Mukhlis) recording (another citation) the "Har Mandir" in Sambhala as an "ancient place of worship".
• Rai Chatar Man Kayath's Chahar Gulshan (1759 CE; slightly after Mukhliṣ) recording the "Har Mandil" in Sambhala to be among the sacred spots of Hindus in around Delhi.

• However, I have to consult Chander Shekhar's critical edition since Sarkar often did away with parts of narrative that seemed to be fluff in his eyes.

Upd Edit (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the interpretation of "Har Mandal" as "temple of Shiva" should be deleted unless an WP:RS has done it. It is very likely that Abul Fazal wrote "Har", not "Hara" or "Hari". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 (1) Subrahmanyam/Alam notes Fazl to have written Hara (Shiva) (2) Mukhlis wrote about a temple of Shiva called Har Mandal. Also, are you replying in the right section? Upd Edit (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What can I say? They screwed up. Nobody is infallible. They note that Mukhlis was quoting Sikh Dasamgranth, and it is well-known that Sikhs (and probably all Punjabis) pronounce "Hari" as "Har" (even though they write it as "Hari" in Gurmukhi). See Harmandir Sahib. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am not so certain. Jeevan Deol writes (end-note 16):

In describing the mosque of Sambhal, Anand Ram notes that the Hindi quotation bhaga bade sambhala ke ki haraji hara mandala avenge refers to the building, which had been converted from a Shiva temple known as the 'Har Mandal' during the reign of Akbar. The line bhalu bhaga bhaya iha sambhala ke haraji hara mandala avahinge is the refrain of savayyas 141—56 in the published text of Nihkalanki Avtar in the Chaubis Avtar (DG 581-3).

Upd Edit (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is even more clobbered. What is the basis for claiming it is "Hindi"? Was there even a language called "Hindi" in those days?

People have quoted longer text from Dasamgranth [1]:

"Paap sambooh binaasan ko Kalkee avtaar kahaavaingey. Turkachhchh turang sapachhchh bado kar kaardhh Kripaan khapaavaingey. Nikasey jim kehar parbat te tas sobh divaalay paavaingey. Bhal bhaag bhaya eh Sambhal ke har joo Harmandar aavaingey.(141)." (page 581)

The line 'Bhal bhaag bhaya eh Sambhal ke har joo Harmandar aavaingey.' has been used 16 times in 'Kalki Avtaar' in 'Sri Dasam Granth Sahib'

.

It is clearly not speaking about Shiva. In fact, it is doubtful if the Sikhs refer to any concept of Shiva at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

You have convinced me. Let's not interpret "Har Mandal" as "temple of Shiva" relying on Alam/Subrahmanyam. Asher, Jarrett, and Sarkar are fine in interpreting it as "temple of Vishnu". Upd Edit (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have located the original text of stanza 141, which is subtly different from all the versions we have seen:

ਭਲੁ ਭਾਗ ਭਯਾ ਇਹ ਸੰਭਲ ਕੇ ਹਰਿ ਜੂ ਹਰਿ ਮੰਦਰਿ ਆਵਹਿਗੇ

Bhalu Bhaaga Bhayaa Eih Saanbhala Ke Hari Joo Hari Maandari Aavahige [2]

But one thing is for sure, there is no "mandal" (मंडल, ਮੰਡਲ) here. It is definitely some variation of "mandir" (मंदिर, ਮੰਦਰ). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Even in Urdu apparently, Mandir is spelt as "Mandar". That is what Google translate says! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I note that Bhandari, a Punjabi Khatri, calls it Mandir; as does Rai Chatar Man who calls it Mandil. So, I think your point about all these sources (consistently) describing a shrine for the worship of Vishnu is well-made.Upd Edit (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think they pronounce it as "Mandir", but the spelling doesn't use the vowel "i". Very strange.

Also the Persian alphabet does not have a letter for "ḍ", as is needed for "manḍal" (मंडल). So how Anand Ram wrote "Har Mandal" in his Safar Nama is also an interesting question. (I have read several times that the Indo-Aryan languages picked up "retroflex consonants" from Dravidian languages. I don't know if [ḍ] was one of those. Persian doesn't seem to have it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I came up with an explanation for why they spelt Mandir as Mandal. Recall that the Perso-Arabic script doesn't have a letter for "ḍ". So, they ended up using "r" for that purpose. For example, "gaḍh" of Hindi is spelt as "garh". Since, "r" was taken away, they seem to have spelt "r" of Hindi as "l". But this practice was retracted sometime in the late 18th century. Currently, "Mandir" is spelt as "Mandar" and pronounced as "Mandir". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

So, I propose to insert the following footnote at this location:

Sujan Rai Bhandari, writing in the late 17th century, noted the "Har Mandir" to be an "ancient" place of worship.

and the following footnote at this location:

Writing a decade before ʿAlī, Rai Chatar Man Kayath noted the "Har Mandil" to be a a sacred site for Hindus in the imperial province of Delhi.

Citations have been provided above.Upd Edit (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Howard Crane

I am still trying to understand Howard Crane's assessment. I haven't studied Carlleyle's report yet, but I notice Cunningham saying:

Amongst the latter the most remarkable was the Old city of Sambhal, where the musjid of Bāber was found to be an old Hindu temple altered and adapted to Muhammadan worship.[3]

I don't think Carlleyle claimed anything as strong as that. I think he was only saying that materials from the temple (in particular, "stones", meaning sculptures?) were reused in the mosque, and that they were plastered over.

Crane says:

Local Hindu tradition asserts that the mosque occupies the site of and incorporates parts of a celebrated Vishnu temple called the Hari-Mandir,[31] but the appearance of the Jāmi' Masjid in no way supports this assertion.

But Carlleyle's claim cannot be assessed by just looking at the "appearance" of the mosque.

The site issue is also tricky. Right now, the mosque looks like it is at the centre of the town. But when it was built, it looks like it was an isolated mound, on the "far side" of the town, according to Mushliq. That is not a typical site for a Jami' Masjid. Crane is not looking into that issue.

On the whole, this is a very vague and superficial analysis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and Crane is not even a regional specialist. Anyway, the funnier part is that it was me who had added Crane's assessment to the article (NPOV); so much for the constant heckling I am being subject to. Upd Edit (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have read Carlleyle's report now, and I see that Cunningham's summary was accurate. That explains the opposiiton! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I forgot to note that this mosque was not the original Jami Masjid. The District Gazetteer notes:

Besides the great mosque [our subject] and the fort of Nawab Amin-ud-daula, already mentioned, there are several Muhammadan buildings of interest in the town. The mosque in Sarai Tarin was built by one Shahzada Arbain in 1559, at the beginning of Akbar’s reign, and was in former days considered the Jami Masjid.

Upd Edit (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Good observation. Do we know when it began to be called "Shahi Jama Masjid"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer to this and many other questions will be found in the 1878/79 lawsuit. I know the Allahabad High Court heard an appeal but I have, so far, failed to locate the judgement(s). Upd Edit (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, where is this Sarai Tarin mosque now? Can you locate it? Upd Edit (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Crane is getting seriously contradicted by other scholars.

• Crane claimed that 6 December 1526 was the date Babur ordered the mosque to be built. Ram Nath says that it was the date it was finished. A reading of the inscription supports Nath.
• Crane says the courtyard is square. It doesn't look square to the naked eye. Naiyar Azam, in a more recent paper, gives precise dimensions.
• Crane says the dome was mounted on squinches. Azam says they were mounted on stalactite pendentives. This is a major architectural difference.
• Crane also missed some key architectural elements: Kalasha pinnacle on the dome (I don't know how common it is but I think it isn't), and also rectanguar chambers behind the qibla wall.

It is beginning to look like we need to discard this source as being unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The architecture section needs another stab; I will propose a draft. Upd Edit (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about mosques but Kalasha was an integral part of the architecture patronaged by Delhi Sultanate, esp. Feroz Shah Tughlaq. Upd Edit (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent reorganization

Thanks to Kautilya3 for restoring my edits. My comments are:

• The reorganization may be "less inflammatory" but makes little sense to me:

• The paragraph starting with "Inscriptions on the mihrab.." has nothing to do with "Architecture".  Done
• "Two inscriptions above the.." has nothing to do with "Claims of converted Hindu temple".  Done
• The paragraph starting with "In 1874, British archaeologist.." belongs, chronologically, in the subsection on British Rule.  Not done
• Mukhlis and Ali reporting about "an adjacent water tank continuing to attract Hindu pilgrims and being frequented by Brahmin priests and flower-sellers" belongs to the history of the site. It cannot be slotted under "Claims of converted Hindu temple"; the line is independent of the issue of the mosque being a converted temple.
• I have to say the same thing about Ganga Prashad, Deputy Collector of the district, noting the mosque to have a chain for the suspension of a bell and Hindu pilgrims' engagement in parikrama around the mosque.

• Why has Vishnu Purana has been singled out? Multiple Puranas link Kalki with Sambhala but importantly, none identify the location of Sambhala.
• We are wasting too many words on the Hara (shiva) issue when it is quite obvious that Alam/Subrahmanyam was not accurate. My passage was far compact but I appreciate footnote a. Not sure
• "On 29 March 1978,.." - Please avoid one-line paragraphs.  Additional information needed Make a suggestion.
• Stephen Dale was talking about Babri; I added his opinion, mistakenly, and then removed it. Can you please remove it?  Done
• "In 1874, British archaeologist A. C. L. Carlleyle ... according to Alexander Cunningham, determined that it was a converted Hindu temple" - We can remove the attribution to Cunningham. Carlleyle says in no uncertain terms that the structure was a converted temple.  Not done
• Why has Fazl been done away with? What about the edits proposed in the "Upcoming edits" section?  Additional information needed Suggest content and citation.

Upd Edit (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this version (my user-space) of the article is better than what exists now. Upd Edit (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to see the page on WP:COATRACK.

I don't think it is possible to have a section on the "history of the site". All we have are little tidbits of information, nothing remotely resembling a "history".

The Vishnu Purana is devoted to Vishnu. So it clearly has primacy. I can add Mahabharata if you have a good citation for it. I will check your user space.

Carlleyle is a WP:PRIMARY source, and Cunningham is WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia values SECONDARY sources.

As for the remaining issues, I will tick them off when done, and I will get back if I need more information.

Cheers -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Carlleyle was an assistant to Cunningham and they co-authored a book; they are both PRIMARY sources.

What exists on my user-space draft that is a COATRACK? The entire Traditions section has been reduced in size and converted into a footnote.

"Vishnu Purana is devoted to Vishnu, so it clearly has primacy" does not make much sense (it ought be the Bhagabat Purana and Kalki Purana, to come from such a POV) and more importantly, you skip the well-sourced (and well-documented) observation that the Puranas never identify Sambahala.

I have also added other details to User:Upd Edit/Shahi Jama Masjid; check the last line in the section on 2024 Litigation and Riots. Upd Edit (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Asking for a History of the site section would be COATRACK. Your current History section is also COATRACK, because it is not a history of the mosque, but rtaher about the history of reporting and temple claims. So on.

Cunningham was Carlleyle's supervisor and he did some fact-checking. He accepted some claims and rejected others. That makes him SECONDARY.

I don't see any particular discussion of Puranas is needed here, but I am also unable to figure out your citations and how your footnote content follows from them. Why can't such stuff go into the page on Sambhal? Or Kalki? This page is about a mosque. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The history of the site is a coatrack at an article on the site? That does not make sense to me. Gyanvapi Mosque is the closest parallel to our subject (other than Babri) and it has an entire section (British Raj) which contains a similar compilation of travel accounts - Reginald Heber, M. A. Sherring, Edwin Greaves, and so on. I do not know how else to put it but multiple noted munshis arrived at the mosque, described it in a line, and went on a tangent about the temple that used to be there and the Hindu pilgrims who still visited the place. What can we do? Upd Edit (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is better. I will redraft my user-space article. Upd Edit (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The Shiva temple claim is still alive (sort of). The current court case claims it to be a "Hari Har temple". Since we are trying to provide authentic information to the public, I don't see why it should be removed. Ignorance of linguistic variations is widespread, including among our high profile scholars, who confidently assert that Asher got it wrong! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Round 2

@Kautilya3, see the current draft. It follows your framework (which I agree is an improvement) almost to the tee. There's nothing significant beyond —

• Partitioning the claims of converted Hindu Temple into two subsections: British India and Mughal Era. This is necessary because the predominant theory of communalism in India is that the evil Britishers foisted divides where there was one; indeed if you read Alam's/Subrahmanyam's article, challenging such a reductionist view motivated their paper.

• See how Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi lays the blame on Annette Beveridge for "starting the controversy"! Upd Edit (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Asserting outright that Subrahmanyam/Alam's reading is mistaken but in the first paragraph of footnote a alongside the other details, you added.  Not done

• The second paragraph is indeed COATRACK-y but footnotes are meant to be coatracks as long as they are not totally irrelevant. Especially in light of the I-am-short-of-words coverage like this. That said, in the spirit of collaboration, I am amenable to you trimming content from the paragraph as you find fit. Not sure
• You raise a very good point about the current case claiming it to be a "Harihar" temple. I do not have good answers yet but I think the Sambhala Mahatmya, which I will access this weekend, will have some answers. But I can say that maps from late 19th century show a Harihar Temple in the place and Harihara is a quite popular divinity about whose antecedents I know little.

• Added footnote b with content from Fazl, Chisti, and Bhandari.  Done Added them to the main text.
• Added a line "; a decade before, Rai Chatar Man Kayath had noted the "Har Mandil" to be a sacred site for Hindus."  Not done Pointless.
• Added footnote e. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upd Edit (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I have removed the line on the 1978 riot because it is a very ill-documented event and this document gives a host of causes except the supposed connection with mosque! And the source cited by me, did not cite any primary source.

• I was correct. The riots of 1976 (not 1978) were connected with the murder of the Maulana by a Hindu mob; however, the '76 riots have been barely covered (Varshney, an expert in the field did not even know of it!) in contemporary media.  Done
• If you come across good sources, preferably prior to this rush of media coverage, you can add it back!

• Added a line - "Commentators and scholars note the litigation to be part of a broader Hindu Nationalist assault on Indian Muslims." with three citations to EPW, IE and Hindu.  Done
• Separated the views of Nath and Crane into a subsection. They do not really fit anywhere else.

Upd Edit (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is what I am thinking. Before Anand Ram, there were multiple reports of Hari Mandir/Mandar/Mandal, written from Delhi or Punjab. Then Anand Ram visits the place, after Aurangzeb's death, and identifies it with the Hindu Beg mosque. His is first ground report as far as I can see. This is so like Ayodhya. Until Aurangzeb's death, nobody knows about these mosques. They only know about the Hindu holy places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am not in favour of a chronology or chronological listing of what everybody said. The chief protagonists in the temple conversion claim are Anand Ram and Carlleyle. Their analysis needs to go at the top. The other people can be inserted where and when needed, only briefly if at all. The disputes on the other hand, are events and they need to go chronological. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• You get a bit of leeway in writing footnotes, but the content there is subject to the same policies as the main body. You can't add WP:OR. You can't start declaring that the sources are wrong, or you disagree with them etc. The best you can do is to point out that there is difference of opinion among the sources and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind.
• Footnotes also shouldn't be long. People won't read them. 3-4 lines at the most is the best bet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The chief protagonists in the temple conversion claim are Anand Ram and Carlleyle. - Says who?

  Chatar Man Kayath's note is far from pointless trivia; it highlights the many pre-colonial sources who continued to hail the sacredness of the site. Which is integrally connected to the fundamental issue raised by me (to which you are yet to respond) — "This [sectioning] is necessary because the predominant theory of communalism in India is that the evil Britishers foisted divides where there was one; indeed if you read Alam's/Subrahmanyam's article, challenging such a reductionist view motivated their paper." That is why I gave the example of Rezavi (a historian of repute and there's no doubt on his expertise) who nicely lays the blame on Beveridge!

  Surveys show that people do not read beyond the Wikipedia lead! That hardly means ... Upd Edit (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again,you have gone off into an an argumentative mode :-)

The chief protagonists were these two people in the text I received and reorganised. I don't see anybody else saying anything as substantive as them.

I don't like my editing to be determined by a hidden agenda, even if I believed in that agenda, which I don't. "Communalism" is a woolly concept. But sectarian conflict, discrimination and persecution have certainly been there for as long as we can see back into the past. The fact that some people deny it (like your Rezavi) or close their eyes to it doesn't mean much. We don't attempt to right great wrongs on Wikipedia.

As for Kayath, he just listed it among the "holy places of Hindus" among dozens of others. Isn't it obvious from everythting that has been said about Hari Mandir that it is a holy place? Do we need a separate attributed mention that it was a "holy place"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

> I don't see anybody else saying anything as substantive as them.

I think Ali was fairly substantive too.

> The fact that some people deny it (like your Rezavi) or close their eyes to it doesn't mean much.

It means much, at the least in academic scholarship. See Bayly's The Pre-history of ‘Communalism’? Religious Conflict in India, 1700–1860 and the close-to-four-hundred-articles that cite it. I can present numerous (and I am not exaggerating to win a dispute) sources that exist on this locus. This is why I keep emphasizing on the sectioning proposed by me.

Upd Edit (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to expand Communalism (South Asia), which got buried since no one contributed to it for more than decade. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

1976 and 1978

I don't see the connection between 1976 and 1978. Congress was in power in 1976, and apparently they imposed long curfews anticipating trouble. In 1978, the Janata Party was in power and they seem to have allowed it to escalate and then covered it up. The Print says the 1978 riot originated among college students over some silly "titles". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing insightful to share (it's a fog all around; there's barely any news coverage even in contemporary Hindi dailies) and I won't oppose anything written by you. Upd Edit (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I dispute that The local administration record says that it was actually committed by a Muslim man but some rioting followed, leading to long curfews. is sufficiently NPOV. The communal bias that pervades the state apparatus of Uttar Pradesh is well known (Brass, Jaffrelot, Varshney) but I am not even premising my arguments on SYNTH because the source itself casts strong doubts on the claims of the state. Upd Edit (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You ignored the preceding sentence. But feel free to suggest alternative wording. And, keep in mind that newspapers are not WP:HISTRS. They can't even get current events right, let alone historical events! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't. The very next line in the source is "This version diverges from other records and publicly available documents from the time." In times of Moditva and its assault on media, that translates to "The government is bullshitting and we are politely calling that out." So, I see no reason to mention the claims put forward by the district administration.

The issue is whether any HISTRS exists for the '76/'78 events; I am also going through contemporary newspapers, which is immensely taxing for the eye, but so far, I have no luck. Nonetheless, there are multiple top-tier scholars who have studied the blatant communal bias of UP's police force! Upd Edit (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

TOI and HT Reports

• Notes the 1978 riot to be a "class conflict"; more coverage.
• The official death toll was 16 (and injuries: 22) but it was probably an undercount.
• There is nothing on 1976 except a note that there was no "extreme violence" in the aftermath of the '76 murder, notwithstanding a few arsons, and that the situation was quickly managed via curfews unlike in '78. Upd Edit (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  The first article ("Notes") says that the 1976 culprit was arrested. No other casualties were mentioned. So I would say that that chapter is closed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The Hindu Reports

• There is nothing on the 1976 riots/murder. Upd Edit (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Dainik Jagran Reports

Probably the worst purveyor of misinformation and communal bile; so.. Upd Edit (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Footnote [a]

Here is the footnote [a] in your draft:

Subrahmanyam and Alam are incorrect in reading Har as Shiva than Hari (Vishnu); Punjabis typically pronounce Hari as Har. Mukhlis quoted a refrain from the Kalki avatar section of the Dasam Granth to provide the context of the temple: "Great is the fortune of Sambhal where Harji will come to the Harmandal". The actual refrain is slightly different and clearer: Bhalu Bhaaga Bhayaa Eih Saanbhala Ke Hari Joo Hari Maandari Aavahige i.e., "Great is the fortune of Sambhal where the Lord will manifest Himself at the Hari Mandir." Mandal (trans. Temple of Vishnu), into the mosque upon receiving the jagir of the district; he also came across Babur's foundational inscription and chronicled it.

In South Asian history, the concept of Kalki, the final incarnation of Vishnu, is likely invoked for the first time in Mahabharata, a Hindu epic; Kalki is slated to be born in "the village of Sambhala, in a pious brahmin dwelling" and reinstate Brahminical supremacy by purging Buddhist and Jain influences. The concept was reproduced extensively in the Puranas and linked with apocalyptic beliefs; however, none of these texts described Sambhala or gave precise location of the place. Around late 11th century, Sambhala appears to have been mapped onto the eponymous geographic place of today with Yadavaprakasa's Vaijayanti kosha noting it to be around Mathura; soon, it became a pilgrimage-spot for the Hindus with the Tīrtha-pratyāmnāyāḥ section in Smrtyarthasara, Madanaparijata, and a host of later texts noting Sambhalagrama to be a muktikṣetra i.e., a place of salvation.

References

• The first paragraph has plenty of OR such as declaring scholars to be "incorrect" etc. We can't do that in the mainspace. Moreover, we don't need it, because you yourself provided enough sources to indicate the various spellings for "Hari" and "Mandir". So that is a non-issue now.
• As for the second paragraph, I have added a quote from Mahabharata, which should be enough. We don't need a global analysis of Puranas here.
• The statement however, none of these texts described Sambhala or gave precise location of the place is argumentation, which Wikipedia can't do. If the source has stated it, we can attribute it. But I can't see it in the source.
• "appears to have been mapped.. seems to be OR as well.
• For the last statement, if the citation [5] does say it, please provide a quotation for soon, it became a pilgrimage-spot.... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• My issue was that we need not spend any words in the body debating the Har/Hari thing; so, I pushed it to notes. I agree with you that the current formulation makes it a non-issue. That said, I will like to amend the translation.  Done
• Mahabharata is not a Purana and the current content is weird. I reiterate that the first couple of lines be placed in a footnote after "These narrations are in line with pre-existing Hindu religious literature."  Done
• The statement is sourced to Bernbaum; do you need a quote? I can cite it to a couple of more sources, too, if you want. And, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, we can use wikivoice.  Done
• Soon. ?
• We can replace "soon, it ..." with "at least since the twelfth century onward, Sambhala appears to have been a pilgrimage spot ...". If you still want quotes, let me know.  Done

Upd Edit (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 By the way, you appear to have missed footnote e in my draft. Upd Edit (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Tīrtha-pratyāmnāyāḥ is not a standalone text. It is a section in a certain class of texts. Upd Edit (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)