Islāmic architecture in India: period of the Delhi and provincial sultanates
- Related Topics:
- rangoli
- desi
- South Asia
- South Asian music
- Indian dance
Although the province of Sind was captured by the Arabs as early as 712, the earliest examples of Islāmic architecture to survive in the subcontinent date from the closing years of the 12th century; they are located at Delhi, the main seat of Muslim power throughout the centuries. The Qūwat-ul-Islām mosque (completed 1196), consisting of cloisters around a courtyard with the sanctuary to the west, was built from the remains of demolished temples. In 1198 an arched facade (maqṣūrah) was built in front to give the building an Islāmic aspect, but its rich floral decoration and corbelled (supported by brackets projecting from the wall) arches are Indian in character. The Quṭb Mīnār, a tall (238 feet high), fluted tower provided with balconies, stood outside this mosque. The Aṛhāi-dīn-kā-jhompṛā mosque (c. 1119), built at Ajmer, was similar to the Delhi mosque, the maqṣūrah consisting of engrailed (sides ornamented with several arcs) corbel arches decorated with greater restraint than the Quṭb example. The earliest Islāmic tomb to survive is the Sultān Gharī, built in 1231, but the finest is the tomb of Iltutmish, who ruled from 1211 to 1236. The interior, covered with Arabic inscriptions, in its richness displays a strong Indian quality. The first use of the true arch in India is found in the ruined tomb of Balban (died 1287). From 1296 to 1316 ʿAlāʾ-ud-Dīn Khaljī attempted to expand the Qūwat-ul-Islām mosque, which already had been enlarged in 1230, to three times its size; but he was unable to complete the work. All that has survived of it is the Alai Darḳāzah, a beautiful entrance.
In contrast to this early phase, the style of the 14th century at Delhi, ushered in by the Tughluq dynasty, is impoverished and austere. The buildings, with a few exceptions, are made of coarse rubble masonry and overlaid with plaster. The tomb of Ghiyās-ud-Dīn Tughluq (c. 1320–25), placed in a little fortress, has sloping walls faced with panels of stone and marble. Also to be ascribed to his reign is the magnificent tomb of Shāh Rukn-e ʿĀlam at Multān in Pakistan, which is built of brick and faced with exquisite tile work. The Koṭla Fīrūz Shāh (1354–70), with its mosques, palaces, and tombs, is now in ruins but represents the major building activity of Fīrūz Shāh, who took a great interest in architecture. Many mosques and tombs of this period and of the 15th century are found in Delhi and its environs; the most notable of them are the Begampur and Khiṛkī mosques and an octagonal tomb of Khān-e Jahān Tilangānī. In the early 16th century, Shēr Shāh Sūr refined upon this style, the Qalʿah-e Kuhnah Masjid and his tomb at Sasarām (c. 1540) being the finest of a series of distinguished works that were created during his reign.
The provinces, which gradually became independent sultanates, did not lag behind in architectural activity. In West Bengal, at Pandua, is the immense Ādīna Masjid (1364–69), which utilized remains of Indian temples. In Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, are a group of elegant mosques, notably the Aṭalā Masjid (1377–1408) and the Jāmiʿ Masjid (c. 1458–79), characterized by maqṣūrahs that have the aspect of imposing gateways. The sultans of Mālwa built elegant structures at Māndu and at Chanderi in the middle of the 15th century. The sultanate of Gujarāt is notable for its great contribution to Islāmic architecture in India. The style, which is basically indigenous, reinterprets foreign influences with great resourcefulness and confidence, producing works notable for their integrity and unity. The city of Ahmadābād (Ahmedabad) is full of elegant buildings; the Jāmiʿ Masjid (c. 1424), for example, is a masterly exposition of the style. Fine examples dating from the second half of the 15th century are the small but exquisite mosques of Muḥāfiz Khān (1492) and Rānī Sabraʾi (1514) at Ahmadābād and the handsome Jāmiʿ Masjid at the city of Chāmpāner.
The Deccan was another great centre, but in contrast to Gujarāt it took little from the indigenous building traditions. Among the earliest works is the Jāmiʿ Masjid at Gulbarga (1367), with its extraordinary cloisters consisting of wide arches on low piers, producing a most solemn effect. The city of Bīdar possesses many remains, including a remarkable series of 12 tombs, the most elaborate of which is that of ʿAlā-ud-Dīn Aḥmad Bahmanī (died 1457), which has extremely fine decorations in coloured tile. Some of the finest examples of Islāmic architecture in the Deccan, however, are in Bijāpur. The most important buildings of this city are the great Jāmiʿ Masjid (begun in 1558) with its superb arched cloisters; the ornate Ibrāhīm Rawẕa; and the Ḍōl Gunbad (built by Muḥammad ʿĀdil Shāh), a tomb of exceptional size and grandeur, with one of the largest domes in existence.
The Hindu kingdoms that managed to retain varying degrees of independence during the period of Islāmic supremacy also produced important works. These structures naturally bore the imprint of what survived of traditional Indian architecture to a greater extent than did those monuments patronized by Muslims. Among the Hindu structures of this period are the extensive series of palaces, all in ruin, built by Rāṇā Kumbhā ąc. 1430–69) at Chitor, and the superb Mān Mandir palace at Gwalior (1486–1516), a rich and magnificent work that exerted considerable influence on the development of Mughal architecture at Fatehpur Sīkrī.
Islāmic architecture in India: Mughal style
The advent of the Mughal dynasty marks a striking revival of Islāmic architecture in northern India: Persian, Indian, and the various provincial styles were successfully fused to produce works of unusual refinement and quality. The tomb of Humāyūn, begun in 1564, inaugurates the new style. Built entirely of red sandstone and marble, it shows considerable Persian influence. The great fort at Āgra (1565–74) and the city of Fatehpur Sīkri (1569–74) represent the building activities of the emperor Akbar. The former has the massive so-called Delhi gate (1566) and lengthy and immense walls carefully designed and faced with dressed stone throughout. The most important achievements, however, are to be found at Fatehpur Sīkri; the Jāmiʿ Masjid (1571), with the colossal gateway known as the Buland Darwāza, for example, is one of the finest mosques of the Mughal period. Other notable buildings include the palace of Jodhā Bāl, which has a strongly indigenous aspect; the exquisitely carved Turkish Sultānā’s house; the Pānch-Maḥal; the Dīvān-e ʿĀmm; and the so-called hall of private audience. Most of the buildings are of post and lintel construction, arches being used very sparingly. The tomb of the emperor, at Sikandarā, near Āgra, is of unique design, in the shape of a truncated square pyramid 340 feet (103 metres) on each side. It consists of five terraces, four of red sandstone and the uppermost of white marble. Begun about 1602, it was completed in 1613, during the reign of Akbar’s son Jahāngīr. Architectural undertakings in this emperor’s reign were not very ambitious, but there are fine buildings, chiefly at Lahore. The tomb of his father-in-law Iʿtimāẖ-ud-Dawla, at Āgra, is small but of exquisite workmanship, built entirely of delicately inlaid marble. The reign of Shāh Jahān (1628–58) is as remarkable for its architectural achievements as was that of Akbar. He built the great Red Fort at Delhi (1639–48), with its dazzling hall of public audience, the flat roof of which rests on rows of columns and pointed, or cusped, arches, and the Jāmiʿ Masjid (1650–56), which is among the finest mosques in India. But it is the Tāj Mahal (c. 1632–c. 1649), built as a tomb for Queen Mumtāz Maḥal, that is the greatest masterpiece of his reign. All the resources of the empire were put into its construction. In addition to the mausoleum proper, the complex included a wide variety of accessory buildings of great beauty. The marble mausoleum rises up from a tall terrace (at the four corners of which are elegant towers, or minārs) and is crowned by a graceful dome. Other notable buildings of the reign of Shāh Jahān include the Motī Masjid (c. 1648–55) and the Jāmiʿ Masjid at Āgra (1548–55).
Architectural monuments of the reign of Aurangzeb represent a distinct decline; the tomb of Rābīʿah Begam at Aurangābād, for example (1679), is a poor copy of the Tāj Mahal. The royal mosque at Lahore (1673–74) is of much better quality, retaining the grandeur and dignity of earlier work; and the Motī Masjid at Delhi (1659–60) possesses much of the early refinement and delicacy. The tomb of Ṣafdar Jang at Delhi (c. 1754) was among the last important works to be produced under the Mughal dynasty and had already lost the coherence and balance characteristic of mature Mughal architecture.
European traditions and the modern period
Buildings imitating contemporary styles of European architecture, often mixed with a strong provincial flavour, were known in India from at least the 16th century. Some of this work was of considerable merit, particularly the baroque architecture of the Portuguese colony of Goa, where splendid buildings were erected in the second half of the 16th century. Among the most famous of these structures to survive is the church of Bom Jesus, which was begun in 1594 and completed in 1605.
The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed the erection of several buildings deeply indebted to Neoclassic styles; these buildings were imitated by Indian patrons, particularly in areas under European rule or influence. Subsequently, attempts were made by the British, with varying degrees of success, to engraft the neo-Gothic and also the neo-Saracenic styles onto Indian architectural tradition. At the same time, buildings in the great Indian metropolises came under increasing European influence; the resulting hybrid styles gradually found their way into cities in the interior. In recent years an attempt has been made to grapple with the problems of climate and function, particularly in connection with urban development. The influence of the Swiss architect Le Corbusier, who worked on the great Chandīgarh project, involving the construction of a new capital for Punjab, in the early 1950s, and that of other American and European masters has brought about a modern architectural movement of great vitality, which is in the process of adapting itself to local requirements and traditions.
Indian sculpture
On the Indian subcontinent, sculpture seems to have been the favoured medium of artistic expression. Even architecture and the little painting that has survived from the early periods partake of the nature of sculpture. Particularly is this true of rock-cut architecture, which is often little more than sculpture on a colossal scale. Structural buildings are also profusely adorned with sculpture that is often inseparable from it. The close relationship between architecture and sculpture has to be taken into account when considering individual works that, even if complete in themselves, are also fragments belonging to a larger context. Indian sculpture, particularly from the 10th century onward, thus cannot be studied in isolation but must be considered as part of a larger entity to the total effect of which it contributes and from which it in turn gains meaning.
The subject matter of Indian sculpture is almost invariably religious. This does not mean that it cannot be understood as a work of art apart from its religious significance; but, at the same time, an understanding of its motivation and intent enriches one’s appreciation. Much of what is represented is the recounting of legend and myth, particularly in the two centuries before Christ, when narrative relief was much in vogue. The work at this time, didactic and edificatory in intent, generally expresses itself in forms that are surprisingly earthy and sensuous. The anthropomorphic representation of the Buddha is avoided, and the subsidiary gods and goddesses are very much creatures of this earth. The Buddha image formulated around the 1st century ce is not what one would expect of the meditative, compassionate, Master of the Law; he is presented rather as an energetic, earthy being radiating strength and power.
The foundations of traditional Hindu imagery were also laid about the same time that the Buddha image was first formulated: images with several arms, and sometimes heads, representing the Indian mind’s attempt to define visually the infiniteness of divinity. In subsequent periods the image with many arms became a commonplace in Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina iconography. Although the various pantheons expanded, they continued to share features of common derivation, expressing the belief that beyond the phenomenal multiplicity of forms lay the unity of the Godhead.
In addition to the major religions, there has always existed in India a substratum of folk beliefs and cults dedicated to the worship of powers that preside over the operation of the life processes of nature. These fertility cults, best expressed in the worship of the male and female divinities yakshas and yakshis, played an important part in the development of Indian art. Among the perennial motifs that spring from the cults, those expressing life and abundance—such as the lotus, the pot overflowing with vegetation, water, or the like, the tree, the amorous couple, and above all the yakshas and yakshis themselves—are most significant. The images of these divinities, in particular, are the source of a great deal of artistic imagery and played a leading part in the development of iconographic types such as the images of the Buddha, the goddess Shri, and other divinities. The maternal as the ideal of female beauty, which is manifested artistically in the emphasis on full breasts and wide hips, can be traced to the same beliefs. The very richness and exuberance of much Indian art is an expression of the view of life that equates beauty with abundance.
It is difficult to generalize about the style of a sculptural tradition that extended over a period of almost 5,000 years, but it is nevertheless clear that the distinguishing quality of Indian sculpture is its emphatic plasticity so obvious in Sanchi I and Mathura sculpture from the 1st–3rd century ce. Forms are seen as swelling from within in response to the power of an inner life, the sculptor’s function being to make these more manifest. At the same time a vision of form that is carved from without rather than modelled from within is also present, as for example at Bharhut. The history of much of Indian sculpture, marked by periods of high achievement bursting with creativity followed by periods in which the potentialities so postulated are gradually worked out, is essentially the interaction of these two dominant tendencies.
Indus valley civilization (c. 2500–1800 bce)
Sculpture found in excavated cities consists of small pieces, generally terra-cotta objects, soapstone, or steatite, seals carved for the most part with animals, and a few statuettes of stone and bronze. The terra-cotta figurines are summarily modelled and provided with elaborate jewelry, which was fashioned separately and applied to the surface of the piece. Most of the work is simple, but a small group of human heads with horns are very sensitively modelled. Animal figures are common, particularly bulls, which are often carved with a sure understanding of their bulky, massive form. This plastic quality is also found in the humped bulls engraved on steatite seals, where the modelling is more refined and sensitive. A humpless beast, generally called a “unicorn,” is another favourite animal, but it is frequently quite stylized. In addition to bisons, elephants, rhinoceroses, and tigers, seals are carved with images of apparent religious significance, often strongly pictographic.
The terra-cotta sculpture and the seals both show two clear and distinct stylistic trends, one plastic and sensuous, the other linear and abstract. These appear during the same period and are also seen in the small group of stone and bronze sculptures that date from this period (National Museum, New Delhi). Of extraordinarily full and refined modelling is a fragmentary torso from Harappa, barely four inches (10 cm) high but of imposing monumentality; the same feeling for massive form is present in a lesser known bronze buffalo. A jaunty bronze dancing girl with head tilted upward (about 4.5 inches [11 cm] high), from Mohenjo-daro, and a headless figure of a male dancer from Harappa, shoulders twisted in a circular movement, clearly demonstrate, in the attenuated and wiry tension of their forms, the second component of Indus valley art. Of great interest is a famous bearded figure from Mohenjo-daro wearing a robe decorated with a pattern composed of trefoil motifs. The tight, compressed shape of the body and the expansive modelling of the head demonstrate that the two aspects of form revealed in Indus valley art were not compartmentalized but interacted with each other. This can also be seen in the interplay of modelled form and textured surface frequently found in works produced by this civilization.
Mauryan period (c. 3rd century bce)
Little is known of Indian art in the period between the Indus valley civilization and the reign of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka. When sculpture again began to be found, it was remarkable for its maturity, seemingly fully formed at birth. The most famous examples are great circular stone pillars, products of Ashoka’s imperial workshop, found over an area stretching from the neighbourhood of Delhi to Bihar. Made of fine-grained sandstone quarried at Chunar near Varanasi (Benares), the monolithic shafts taper gently toward the top. They are without a base and, in the better preserved examples, are capped by campaniform lotus capitals supporting an animal emblem. The entire pillar was carefully burnished to a bright lustre commonly called the “Maurya polish.” The most famous of these monuments is the lion capital at Sarnath, consisting of the front half of four identical animals joined back to back. There is a naturalistic emphasis on build and musculature, and the modelling is hard, vigorous, and energetic, stressing physical strength and power. Very similar, if not at the same level of achievement, is the quadruple lion capital at Sanchi. Single lions are found at Vaishali (Bakhra), Rampurva, and Lauriya Nandangarh. The Vaishali pillar is heavy and squat, and the animal lacks the verve of the other animals—features, according to some, designating it as an early work, executed before the Mauryan style attained its maturity. By contrast, the Rampurva lion, finished with painstaking and concise artistry, represents the style at its best. His smooth, muscled contours, wiry sinews, rippling, flamboyant mane, and alert stance reveal the work of a superior artist. An example at Lauriya Nandangarh is interesting because the pillar and the lion are both complete and in their original place, giving a clear idea of the column as it appeared to its contemporaries.
The lion was the animal most often represented, but figures of elephants and bulls are also known. At Dhauli in Orissa, the fore part of an elephant is carved out of rock on a terrace above a boulder that carries several of Ashoka’s edicts. The modelling here is soft and gentle, and the plump, fleshy qualities of the young animal’s body, seen as emerging from the rock, are suffused with warmth and natural vitality. Since the contrast with the rather formal, heraldic lions could not be more complete, the sculpture clearly testifies to the simultaneous existence of a style different from that of the lion capitals. The style might very well represent the indigenous tradition of plastic form that appears consistently in later art and also in some of the animal capitals made in the imperial atelier, notably the damaged elephant that once crowned the pillar at Sankisa and, above all, the splendid bull from Rampurva. In this great work of art, the two opposing concepts of form merge in a work of harmonious power. The pronounced naturalism comes from the same source as do the lions, but the tense line and hard modelling yield to a form that wells from within and at the same time is given stability and strength by a vision imposed from without.
The sudden appearance of Mauryan art with seemingly no tradition behind it has led to speculation that it was the creation of foreign artists, either Achaemenian or Hellenistic. Persian influence, particularly in the lotus capitals and the figures of lions can hardly be denied, but what is remarkable is the drastic reinterpretation of alien forms by Indian artists. This is a process that is repeatedly seen in the history of Indian art.
Besides the animal sculpture, some human figures, more or less life size, can also be assigned to the Mauryan period, though scholarly opinion is by no means unanimous on the point. Among the most important are three images discovered at Patna (ancient Pataliputra, the Mauryan capital), two of which are representations of yakshas, the popular male divinities associated with cults of fertility, and the third, found at Didarganj (a section of Patna), a representation of a yakshi, or female divinity. Stylistically the images are very similar. The standing yakshas (Indian Museum, Kolkata) are powerful creatures; the ponderous weight of their bodies, together with a certain refined appreciation of the soft flesh, is admirably rendered. The Didarganj yakshi (Patna Museum), a masterpiece, displays the Indian ideal of female beauty, the heavy hips and full breasts strongly emphasizing the maternal aspect. In a nude torso discovered at Lopanipur, the sophisticated and sensitive treatment of the surfaces and the gentle blending planes that avoid all harsh accents produce a work of much refinement.
Small stone discs (also called ring stones because several of them are perforated in the centre), found from Taxila to Patna, are clearly connected with the cult of a nude mother goddess. They represent Mauryan sculpture on a smaller and more intimate scale but characterized by the same refined and exquisite workmanship. They are executed in bas-relief, which became the favourite form of sculpture in the subsequent period.
The terra-cotta art of the Mauryan period is best represented by a substantial group of figurines, modelled for the most part, the clay sculptor performing work in his medium at the same level as the artist working in stone. Patna has yielded a large number of such works, but examples are found throughout the Gangetic Plain. The clothing and jewelry on the figurines are heavy and elaborate, the modelling, particularly of the head, is sensitive, and the expression is often one of great charm and refinement. There are also more archaic examples, distinguished by flat bodies, enormous hips, and modelled heads and breasts.
Indian sculpture in the 2nd and 1st centuries bce
The Mauryan empire collapsed in the early years of the 2nd century bce, and with it passed the art with which it was intimately related. The sculpture that is found throughout India from the middle of the 2nd century bce is startlingly different, but the process by which this change took place in a relatively short period of time is not fully understood. Several schools, sharing common features but nevertheless possessing distinct individual characteristics, are known to have existed. The history of the schools of northern India is somewhat obscure, largely due to the great destruction wrought in the Gangetic heartland; but there appears to have flourished there and in adjacent areas a school of great importance represented by the remains discovered at Bharhut, Sanchi, Mathura, and Buddh Gaya. Western India had its own school, as revealed in the sculptures decorating the cave temples, notably those of Bhaja, Pitalkhora, and Karli. In the southeast, the important school of Andhradesha flourished in the Krishna River valley at Amaravati, Jaggayyapeta, and associated sites; and in eastern India, what is now the modern state of Orissa, made its contribution in the rock-cut sculptures at Udayagiri-Khandagiri. The distinctive schools, though spread over a subcontinent, were not isolated from each other. The contacts fostered by a flourishing trade and by the constant movement of pilgrims were always very close, and it was never long before developments in one part of India were echoed in another.
Judging from extant remains, artists of the earlier period (c. 3rd century bce) preferred figures carved in the round, relief sculpture being quantitatively quite insignificant. By contrast, it was sculpture in low relief that was favoured in the first two centuries before Christ; the earlier tradition was not quite forgotten, but figures carved in the round are relatively few. Although there is no stylistic difference, relief sculpture is here considered first according to the various regional schools, and sculpture in the round is treated separately.
