Cultural activities and religious practices associated with the Qutb Complex
The Qutb complex stands as a testament to the diversified history of India with its cultural nucleus in the heart of Delhi. The Qutb complex, built as an architectural symbol of the authority of the Delhi Sultanate, presents a picture of the time period of “Muslim” rule over India and the establishment of an Islamic state which flourished under the watchful eye of the Sultans. The Sultanate epoch in the country is defined by communal inter-relationships between different religious and cultural groups hailing from different regions, speaking a multitude of different dialects and languages, and sustaining faith in different deities.
Understanding these relationships between such vastly different communities presents to be a challenge owing to the lack of unbiased sources from this time. The main sources for understanding the empire built by the Delhi Sultanate are the Persian chronicles patroned by the Sultans, as well as the epigraphs present on the mighty monuments built by these same rulers. Therefore, the history of Delhi during this period is presented almost exclusively from the lens of the ruling elite. One of the sources which provide more insight into the relationship of the emperors with their subjects are the buildings that they constructed to portray a specific image of their empire, and consequently, themselves. The Qutb complex is one such architectural source which plays a decisive role in the interpretation of religion and culture under the Sultanate. The components of the complex themselves, being as varied as they are, show an apt heterogeneity of cultures existing together under a religiously foreign rule. This essay aims to explore the nuances of this existence and the role that the Qutb complex played in providing insight into the history of these relationships.
The masjid-I jami’ in particular is a curious example of the amalgamation and co-existence of various cultures. The mosque built out of the pillages of plundered Hindu and Jain temples has been subject to conflicting scholarly interpretations in the past few decades. Mosques and schools built by the Sultans served as places of congregation where a unified Muslim society could learn and re-iterate the ideals of Islamic worship and piety. The obvious intention of gaining legitimacy through religion also served as a reason for the construction of these architectural marvels, but the urge to create a unified Muslim society with the Sultans at the apex of all authority is evident in the architecture of the mosque.
The mosque’s alternate name, Quwwat al-Islam or the Might of Islam, is not lost on the scholars who have studied the structure extensively. This name, coupled with the stylistic elements spread throughout the mosque are heavily representative of the Islamic iconoclasm and fanaticism that the ruling elite propagated during this period. Stylistic elements such as the balconies on the Qutb Minar and the vaulted arches are characteristically “Muslim” architectural elements. Furthermore, the Qur’anic verses inscribed on various structures within the complex further prove the obvious Islamic religious influences. Built during the reign of powerful rulers such as Qutb al-Din Ai-Beg, Shams al-Din Iltutmish, and Ala’ al-Din Khalaji, the monuments show a felicitous journey of Islamic rule in India starting from 587/1191–2 till the reign of Khalaji in 695/1229–30, therefore covering a large period in Indian Islamic history.
The role of the “Hindu” hand in building the mosque and its adjoining structures further complicates the extraction of a linear communal relationship. The monument standing as a representation of the community living in twelfth century Delhi is harder to understand due to the intermingling of vastly different and possibly conflicting religious groups of the time. Scholarly debate on this topic has shown differing interpretations of the Indo-Islamic relations of this time. Scholars like Mohammad Mujeeb and Meister believe that the “Hindu” adaptation of characteristically “Muslim” elements such as the corbelled dome and the Saracenic arch are examples of inter-community co-operation and amity. On the other hand, scholars like Anthony Welch and Robert Hillenbrand present the Sultanate in a peremptory manner, stating that the rulers imposed a “Muslim” aesthetic on the “Hindu” workers to, firstly create a more familiar atmosphere for the ruling elite living in a wholly unfamiliar land and secondly, assert their dominance over a non-believing populace.
The function of the masjid-I jami’ differed from other mosques patroned by the rulers. Built in a time where the rulers were inaugurating a regime built on the ideals of a religion foreign to the native inhabitants of the Delhi region, the mosque was built premeditatedly to spread a deliberate message. This is evident in the variety of subject matter inscribed within the Qutb quarters and the strategic placement of these messages. To illustrate, the walls most visible to the masses were inscribed with statements of conquest and propagated caution to the non-believing subjects. However, the qiblah screen used exclusively for Islamic worship and consisting of a primarily Muslim audience instead stressed on religious and devout ideals and regulations and the Prophetic message. As historian Sunil Kumar comments, the mosque portrayed a “proof of the incumbent ruler’s piety, a statement directed to the Muslim congregation in the mosque.” There are multiple such attestations to the role of the mosque in disseminating a religious image to the populace. This is seen in the Khalaji inscriptions which link the “reviving”, “protecting” and “strengthening” of the shari’a to the construction of such mosques.
The focus on the “Muslim” aspects which are inherent to the discussion about the complex do not distract from the fact that the structure was influenced by the environment in which it was built filled with people of non-Islamic faith. Moreover, many of the masons working on the complex were native to the region and influenced the making of these Islamic structures. Mujeeb talks about the traditional techniques used by the stone-masons and the active rejection of “Muslim” techniques more likely to be envisioned being used while constructing and ideating the mosque and minaret. He postulates that the workers were the ones to influence these significant decisions which now define the complex in its present state and affect the message they disseminate. Sunil Kumar also talks about the different inscriptions found within the complex which further remark on this subject. He mentions an inscription in a local dialect which reads “the pillar of Malikdin. May it bring good fortune” with respect to the Qutb Minar. This stands witness against the popular belief that the “Hindu” workers within the complex worked under obligation, building structures resentfully. Therefore, many historians conclude that the Qutb complex was, at least to a certain extent, a collaborative effort between different cultures and religious groups.
The Qutb complex, though built by an inherently “Muslim” nobility for a seemingly “Muslim” state, carries with it the handiwork and influences of various other cultures. This has been best described by Muhammad Mujeeb in ‘Islamic Influences in India’ where he talks about the arch within the masjid-I jami’ and comments that “it is something that can be translated into many forms and many moods, into the peace and tranquillity of the Buddha image, into the timeless contemplation of the Trimurti or Elephanta caves, the ecstasy of the sufi, the poet’s dream of loveliness that eludes the drapery of the woods.” The historian aptly captures the feeling which the Qutb complex houses, a notion that transcends the boundaries of religious and cultural fences. Whether it is the “Hindu” artisans’ hands that carve the stone or the Islamic picture those stones form, the Qutb complex cannot represent one or the other community exclusively. In conclusion, the Qutb complex stands as a symbolic pillar unto which the societal relationships of the time are imprinted whether that be of the ruling elite with their subjects or between the various cultural and religious communities co-existing within the same territory. It is a cognizance of the complex religious and cultural history that is housed within the capital of the country and the nuances which are inherent to the research into such subjects.
