Is Kalhuvakaru Mosque Mughal Architecture?

According to an article in Haveeru Daily, Kalhuvakaru Mosque is an example of 'miniature' Mughal architecture. How accurate is this statement?

Examining the mosque, the first thing one observes is that the mosque does not exhibit any of the typical features of Mughal architecture. These features are:

• Jaroka: Overhanging balconies;
  
• Chhatri: Stone canopies that resemble umbrellas;
  
• Chhajja: Stone eaves;
  
• Jali: fenestrated stone carvings. Dhivehi word 'jaali' has more or less the same meaning;
  
• Guldasta: Flower shaped pinnacles;
  
• Charbagh: Quadrangular gardens.
  

So what architectural features does the mosque have? The most prominent feature is the coral carving in the base structure. This is more or less identical to the carvings in Hukuru Mosque, built during the time of Ibrahim Iskandharu (1648-1687). (Hukuru Mosque was built a few years after Taj Mahal was completed in 1653.)

Coral carving is an ancient art practiced in the Maldives since time immemorial. Evidence of this can be found in tomb stones in Koagannu Cemetery of Meedu Addu Atoll, which date back to the 12^th Century CE. This was 400 years before the first Mughal Emperor, Babur, defeated Ibrahim Lodhi at the First Battle of Panipat in 1526 to establish the Mughal Empire. Mughal architecture came much later. (The picture above contrasts Mughal stone carving and those found in Male mosques.)

The other striking feature in Kalhuvakaru Mosque is the wooden ceiling decoration. This type of ceiling decoration is not part of Mughal architecture, which uses interlaced stone-and-masonry arches and vaults for this purpose. On the other hand, such ceiling decoration is found in some temples of Sri Lanka.

It might be interesting to find out why experts who saw Kalhuvakaru Mosque thought it is Mughal architecture. Is it simply because it's a mosque and Mughals were Muslims? In the 16 years I spent in India, I have seen hundreds of Mughal buildings and mosques, none of them resembling Kalhuvakaru Mosque even remotely.

[To read the Haveeru article in Dhivehi click here.]

Heritage vital to the survival of Maldives as a nation

The recent history of Kalhuvakaru Mosque is a virtual barometer that reflects the cavalier treatment meted out to Maldivian heritage by successive regimes. It is also a damning clue to why the younger generation has lost its sense of identity and pride in the nation.

Built of ebony wood (the black color of which gives the mosque its name) on a carved coral stone base, Kalhuvakaru Mosque dates back to 1789, to the regime of King Hassan Noordeen I in the Maldives and the French Revolution in Europe. Till 1978 it was located near the National Football Stadium.

In 1978 Kalhuvakaru Mosque was dismantled to make way for a larger two-storey mosque. The old woodwork and masonry was auctioned off and bought by Furanafushi resort, where it was reconstructed. After Maumoon Abdul Gayoom became president later that year he took action to get back the mosque. The Australian owner of Furanafushi donated the mosque to the government (It was not bought back as claimed by the government).

Maumoon’s action appears to have been motivated more by politics than any love for heritage. This is indicated by the fact that the mosque was not restored back to its original historical site. Rather, it was placed in an insignificant corner of Sultan’s Park and left to decay. Perhaps it would have been better maintained if it was left in Furanafushi.

Kalhuvakaru Mosque was not the only historical structure demolished during the regimes of Ibrahim Nasir and Maumoon. The list includes, Aa Koattay Buruzu and other forts in Male, most buildings in the royal palace compound, Sifainge and numerous historic mosques in various parts of Maldives.

Last year, under an externally funded project, restoration work was started on Kalhuvakaru Mosque. The mosque was reopened by President Mohamed Nasheed on Monday. Speaking at the ceremony he said that history and heritage were the most important distinctions of a country. This is a significant departure from the past policy on nationalism and heritage, giving a ray of hope for national revival.