DISCLAIMER: The paintings inserted for reference are in public domain, and taken either from Wikimedia Commons or from the books cited in bibliography.
The early Mughal Empire, founded by Babur in 16th century, was a conquest empire and as such most of its resources were spent on continually consolidating it; but by the mature years of Akbar’s reign this territorial consolidation was largely complete, allowing the emperor to direct his energies in formulating and consolidating the idea of sovereignty and legitimacy of Mughal rule. He integrated a new social, political and economic order with the Mughal emperor at its absolute apex. Subsequently Jahangir and Shah Jahan’s reign witnessed a mantle of crystallized sovereignty already in place. Nonetheless, the new emperors, though not abandoning the Akbari dispensation, strove to reformulate their own ideas of kingship forging their distinct tools – Akbar had sealed his conquests and administrative accomplishments through courtly rituals and Akbarnama, Jahangir gave primacy to paintings.
Paintings had been a powerful medium for conception of kingship since Mongol period. As also Timurid and Safavid princes trained in the art, competed with each other in commissioning works. Though certain controversial objections were made regarding it being an anti-Islamic practice, it soon found its legitimacy in narrative depiction of Adam receiving from God original images of prophets. Linkages with art of calligraphy, already considered sacred, facilitated its acceptance further.
Mughals prior to Jahangir too had taken up this tradition, with Akbar commissioning illustrations for Akbarnama and the Hamzanama. However, the sophistication in techniques and styles developed under Jahangir were unprecedented. As per his own claim in Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri, Jahangir could identify the artist merely by his style and brush strokes. Such personal absorption is manifested in numerous Indian and European prints collected and paintings commissioned during his early days as a rebel prince in Allahabad; but more important, from paradigmatic perspective of his paintings being a visual depiction of Jahangiri kingship, are works commissioned after his accession to the throne.
Moving away from Akbar’s action centred paintings, Jahangiri paintings were characterized with simpler compositions of less action with details more quietly revealed, adding to centrality of the emperor in the depicted event instead of overpowering or de-emphasizing the narrative. The sole focus of the work – the emperor, who is neither involved in an action nor is affected by it, is firmly established as untroubled, isolated and fully in control. For, where Akbari paintings sought legitimacy of emperor’s political and militaristic might by showing him in action; under Jahangir that power is already concentrated in hands of the Mughal emperor and as such the focus shifts upon establishing his religious and spiritual credentials. Therefore, the concentration is not on a central encounter or action, instead on interplay of human personalities with powerful character studies – An art of portraits, especially of Jahangir; oftentimes occurring outside of a historical frame and characterized by underlying symbolism.
An excellent example is a double folio painting of Jahangir and Sheikh Muinuddin Chishti; the two not being contemporaneous, it is clearly set in a metaphysical space. The painting entails the Sufi Sheikh literally holding a golden globe with an upturned key, while the next folio depicts Jahangir holding the same globe but with the key rightly facing the keyhole. If the symbolism is not overt enough, the painting is also inscribed –“key to opening of two worlds entrusted to your hand”. Them being depicted on two separate pages may be interpreted to indicate variation in their time lines and hence impossibility of an encounter in a shared historical space. Instead inhabiting two separate spiritual and political spheres, both reign supreme in their respective worlds. However, through transference of the key –a visual depiction of Jahangir being the spiritual successor of Muinuddin Chishti– the Mughal emperor’s claim of supremacy over even the spiritual realm is legitimized.
A similar painting conveying political legitimacy is of Jahangir being entrusted with a globe by Akbar, employing painting-within-a-painting technique. Both emperors have a halo around their head. This stylistic vocabulary has been frequently employed in Jahangiri paintings as a visually tangible manifestation of the emperor’s spiritual superiority. Thus, much like Akbar’s use of illuminist philosophy, this light imagery of divine halo emanating from within the emperor established Jahangir not only as a legitimate political successor to Akbar, but also as a semi-divine sovereign in his own right.
This is more apparent in another painting depicting Jahangir embracing Safavid ruler Shah Abbas I, whilst standing atop a huge globe with Asia lying under his feet, proclaiming universal nature of his kingship. Further, the overwhelming halo that constitutes the backdrop of the encounter not only highlights his semi-divine sovereignty, but also, through a dual imagery of sun and moon occurring simultaneously, situates the painting out of a real time. Thus establishing Jahangir’s sovereignty as spatially and temporally all encompassing.
Additionally, an abstract spatial setting and other such visual tropes are often employed to acknowledge the ‘a-historicity’ of events depicted. For instance, the painting wherein Jahangir shoots a severed head of Malik Ambar standing atop a globe – impossible on account of the latter remaining undefeated during Jahangir’s reign – is interpreted by Azfar Moin to instead be supplementing an event narrated in Jahangirnama. Here, on the night before Mughal army was going to confront Malik Ambar, an owl perched on the palace roof having been interpreted as an omen of ‘violent death’ was shot by Jahangir and subsequently finds depiction in the said painting.
The importance of this painting then needs to be perceived in the light of its talismanic value. For, a similar incident is narrated in Akbarnama where Akbar having defeated Hemu refuses to behead him, stating to have already dismembered him once – a reference to a painting he had made before the battle. In doing so a ritualistic meaning is given to paintings. This totemic value is a way to motivate followers and threaten enemies, sanctioning the emperor a cosmological right to rule. Another such totemic but less literal portrayal is found in a painting of Jahangir shooting an arrow at a naked dark-skinned old man that is interpreted to be ‘daridra’, literally poverty. In doing so Jahangir is ejecting poverty from his empire; according to Moin, drawing inspiration from Hindu legitimizing symbols of Diwali with Jahangir as lord Rama ridding the world of disorder and recreating the world anew with justice.
Such symbols borrowed from different cultures further the claim for universal nature of Jahangiri kingship; since Hinduism was not the only tradition from which Jahangir drew, the emperor is shown supreme over religious and ethnic differences of all his subjects. For instance, the biblical symbolism of lion and lamb lying together in harmony is often portrayed in lower half of his paintings, reflecting, Ebba Koch notes, a reign of such justice that even wild animals have lost their wildness and live peacefully with their prey – “peace among animals under rule of the messiah” like in ancient Iranian myths. More overt in declaring cross cultural legitimacy is another painting-within-a-painting of Jahangir holding the image of his ‘mother’, the Virgin Mary.
Another more literal narration of this culturally encompassing theme occurs in the painting where Jahangir sits atop an hourglass throne, while world’s greatest leaders including King James of England and Ottoman Sultan pay him homage. However, they are being ignored in favour of a Sufi saint, propagating not only the Mughal emperor’s preference of spirituality over worldly materialism, but also through the visual hierarchy making an explicit statement of Jahangir’s sovereignty over these rulers. With the inscription– “may your age endure a thousand years”, it additionally highlights the timelessness of his reign as Jahangir literally reigns over the throne of time; the hourglass has already begun to symbolize the age of prosperity under Jahangir having already begun.
Thus, “paintings to Jahangir meant more than mere aesthetics and representations”. Rather having both talismanic value as well as intricate symbolism, they were means to communicate a highly sacred image of the imperial traditions and Jahangir himself; not only referring to his worldly doings but also his mystical achievements. The paintings then were not merely portrayal of emperor’s miracles but themselves became a space for Jahangir to carry out these spiritual miracles.
Similarly, Shah Jahan too had objectives other than mere surface depiction of events to convey through his paintings. While his paintings are artistically inferior to his predecessor, nonetheless, they successfully express Shah Jahani idea of ideal but aloof kingship, as opposed to spiritual benevolence of Jahangir. Absorbed more with the idea of formality of court ceremonies, Shah Jahani paintings do not reveal much about emperor’s personal feelings or inclinations, instead concentrating on assertion of his power and accurate representation of his rule. They are concerned with excessive neatness, minuteness to details, especially the architectural features and court ceremonies with perfect decorum; perhaps owing to the preoccupation with portraying prosperity of the rule.
An example is ‘festivities at the wedding of Dara Shikho’ which more than portraying natural realism and excitement of the figure concerned, paints them in a cold unfeeling light while the background takes over to narrate the prosperity of the imperial setting. Especially as embellishments of crushed gold and precious stones replace the flesh and blood realness, and flow of emotions, with ornate materialism lacking energy. Differing from decluttered pages of Jahangir with few characters, as also from Akbar’s activities dispersed over the pages, Shah Jahan’s paintings thus present masses of figures before individuals. This lack of individualism is in line with emperor’s own formal portrayal– painted in an idealized manner with his eyes and features flat, concealing all emotions to instead highlighting Shah Jahan’s cold idealism.
To conclude then, aestheticism aside, Mughal paintings are a political and ideological tool to visually depict and propagate Mughal idea of kingship, to disseminate the idea of sovereignty as uniquely valued by individual emperor. For, paintings not being merely viewed but also participated with thematic absorption, Monica Juneja shows, become an ideal space for Mughal concept of ‘utopia’ to manifest. Free of temporal restriction otherwise associated with a ‘futuristic’ perfect society, paintings being an abstract out of bounds of space and time, present it as having already arrived under Mughal rule rather than waiting in anticipation of it.
Bibliography
Beach, M. C. (1992). The New Cambridge History of India I:3 : Mughal and Rajput Painting. Cambridge University Press.
Juneja, M. (2001). On the Margins of Utopia - One more look at Mughal Painting. The Medieval History Journal, 4(2), 203-240.
Koch, E. (2001). The Hierarchical Principles of Shah-Jahani Painting. In Mughal Art and Imperial Ideology: Collected essays (pp. 130-162). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Moin, A. (2012). The Throne of Time: The Painted Miracles of the Saint Emperor. In The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship and Sainthood in Islam (pp. 183-224). New York: Columbia University Press.
Comments