Somanātha and other mediaeval temples in Kāṭhiāwād / by Henry Cousens, M.R.A.S., late superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, Western circle.

  • Henry Cousens
Date:
1931
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Somanātha and other mediaeval temples in Kāṭhiāwād / by Henry Cousens, M.R.A.S., late superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, Western circle. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    37/324 (page 21)
    should lie consent to that bargain, he might justly be called a seller of idols ; and that he looked upon a breaker of them as a more honourable title. He therefore ordered them to proceed.1 The next blow having broken up the belly of Somnath. which had been made hollow, they discovered that it was full of diamonds, rubies and pearls of a much greater value than the amount of wbat the Brahmans had offered, so that a zeal for religion was not the sole cause of their application to Mahmud.”2 In neither Ibn Asir’s3 or Mirkhund’s account is there any mention of the offered bribe or of the jewels in the belly of the idol. The idol was not an image in -the usual sense but a linga, the regular symbol representing Mahadeva or Siva.4 It is a long cylindrical stone, the lower part of which is embedded in the yoni as the lower stone is called, or, as said above, in the ground. The fact that the accounts say that part of its length was in the ground shows that it could not have been an image of a person with arms, legs, nose and belly.5 A1 BirunTs account (Cir. A.D. 1030) is much more reliable, for he does not fall into the error of calling Somanatha an image in the ordinary sense.6 He appears to have visited Somanatha twice. In his Tarikh-i-Hind he says: “ The lunar stations they [the Hindus] declare to be the daughters of Prajapati, 1 Speaking of Mahmud’s sack of Muttra (Mathura) in 1017, Ferishta says : “ He broke clown and burned all the idols [melted them], and amassed a vast quantity of gold and silver, of which the idols were mostly composed. He would have destroyed the temples also, but he found the labour would have been excessive ; while some say he was averted from his purpose by their admirable beauty. He certainly extravagantly extolled the magni¬ ficence of the buildings and city in a letter to the governor of Ghizny, in which the following passage occurs : ‘ There are here a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; most of them marble, besides innumerable temples ; nor is it likely this city has attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of deenars, nor could such another be constructed under a period of two centuries’.” (Briggs’ Ferishta, I, 58.) Mahmud thus seems to have had an eye for the beautiful, and, for this reason, probably spared the temple of Somnatha. He certainly had enough willing followers to have made short work of it. H. C. 2 Dow’s Ferishta, (1812), I, 65, 66. 3 His Kamil-ut-Tawarik, written about A.D. 1230. 4 The linga is the representation of the genital organ of Siva ,and as such, is worshipped in the form of a phallus. The conventional form, in which it is found in Hindu temples, is not at all offensive, and does not suggest its origin to the casual visitor. It represents, symbolically, the procreative power of nature. Such worship has not been confined to Hinduism. 5 The following fairy tale is told, in all seriousness, of the poet Sa'di, who lived two hundred years after Mahmud “ I saw,” he says, “ an idol of ivory at Somnath, jewelled like the idol Munat in the days of superstition and ignor¬ ance.” “ Sa’di, wondering at the folly of live people paying their adoration to a material without sense or motion, ventures to express his sentiments to an attendant priest, with whom he has some acquaintance. The priest turns upon him in rage, and excites a commotion which endangers Sa'di’s life whereupon he throws himself upon the mercy of the chief priest, stating that, although he had ventured to express a doubt, it was merely because he desired con¬ viction. The priest tells him he is a man of sense and judgment, and shall be convinced that this idol is superior to all others, and deserving of adoration. If he will abide in worship all night, he promises him to see the idol raise its arm in the morning in adoration. Sa'di consents, and gives an amusing account of the inconvenience he ex¬ perienced from the pressure of the unwashed, unsavoury crowd. Just before sunrise, the image, at the sounding of a bell, raises its arm, to the delight of the worshipping thousands. Sa’di assures the chief priest of his perfect conviction, flatters him and obtains his intimacy, till, finding an opportunity when the temple is empty, he gets be¬ hind the image, and there discovers a servitor concealed, with the rope in his hand for raising the idol’s arm. The man runs and Sa'di follows, trips him up and throws him into a well; then, to make quite sure, he drops heavy stones upon him, feeling that his own life would assuredly be sacrificed if the discovery were known, and quaintly remarking ‘Dead men tell no tales.’ He then hurries away from Somnath and returns to Persia through Hindustan, by a route of great danger and difficulty, the troubles of which he says he shall remember to his dying day.” (Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, VII, 884.) 6 Colonel Yule says of him that “ in Indian matters he knew what he was talking about a great deal better than other old Arabic writers.” (Bombay Gazetteer, I, Part II.)