Journal of History & Soc...Sciences - View Article

7/29/2019 Journal of History & Soc...Sciences - View Article

1/27

Editor: Dr. Pushpa Tiwari

Article

Volume: II, Issue II, July-December 2011

IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE LATER MUGHAL PERIOD:

CONSIDERATION OF SITE

Ms. Savita Kumari

Abstract

When the Mughal Empire was at its zenith, it was the court that was responsible for undertaking major art

and architectural projects and determined the style and taste of the period. In the Later Mughal period

(17071857) decentralization took place not only in the domain ofpolitics but also in the realm ofart and

architecture, which reflected continuing tussle between Mughal rulers and contending groups: nobility in the

eighteenth century and the British in first halfofthe nineteenth century. During this period, architecture and

politics cemented together. The Mughal rulers hardly had any opportunity to patronise magnificent

architecture in want ofresources and stability. Their architectural activity was limited to few modest tombs,

palaces and mosques. The present article attempts to demonstrate how these few modest buildings were

imbued with strong political and religious messages and exerted considerable influence owing to the site

where these buildings were constructed.

Keywords

Dargah, Muhajjar, Urs, Pir, Pirzadas, Murid

Content

Imperial Architecture in the Later Mughal Period: Consideration ofSite

Mughal rulers built extensively throughout their Empire and were responsible for patronising some ofthe finest

buildings ever seen by the entire Islamic world. In the later Mughal period (17071857), however, emperors

made scant contribution in the domain ofarchitecture owing to political instability and financial bankruptcy.The article constitutes a survey ofsalient architectural features ofthe buildings patronised by the later Mughal

emperors. An Attempt has been made to reconstruct the original fabric ofbuildings through topographical

paintings ofDelhi, produced during that time, as a number ofbuildings patronised by the rulers are now in


2/27

altered state and lost their original fabric. The present article also addresses certain issues related to the

locales where architectural projects are undertaken by the Mughal emperors. Imperial tombs, palaces, and

mosques are taken as case studies to see how the location where rulers erected their buildings made a direct

reference to the contemporary political and cultural landscape ofDelhi.

Later Mughal Emperors Reign Period

Bahadur Shah I

17071712

Jahandar Shah

17121713

Farrukhsiyar

17131719

Rafi ud-Darjat

1719

Rafi ud-Daulat a.k.a. Shah Jahan II

1719

Nikusiyar

1719

Muhammad Ibrahim

1720

Muhammad Shah

17191720, 17201748

Ahmad Shah Bahadur

17481754


3/27

Alamgir II

17541759

Shah Jahan III

In 1759

Shah Alam II

17591806

Akbar Shah II

18061837

Bahadur Shah Zafar

18371857

Table 1: Reign period of the Later Mughal Emperors

Imperial buildings ofthe Later

Mughal period studied in this article

Date

Tomb Buildings

Tomb ofthe emperor Shah 'Alam

Bahadur Shah I, Dargah ofShaikh Qutb

Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki, Mehrauli, Delhi

1712

Tomb ofthe emperor Muhammad

Shah, Dargah ofShaikh Nizamuddin

Auliya, Delhi

17191748

Palaces

Zafar Mahal (Palace ofAkbar II), 18061837


4/27

Mehrauli, Delhi

Gateway, Zafar Mahal, Mehrauli, Delhi 1848

Zafar Mahal, Red Fort, Delhi 1842

Hira Mahal, Red Fort, Delhi 1842

Mosque

Moti Masjid, Mehrauli, Delhi 1709

Table 2:Imperial buildings of the Later Mughal period

Imperial Tombs

The significance oftomb buildings for the Mughal rulers for proclamation ofpower and authority can be

judged by the fact that the first grand architectural project undertaken by the great Mughal Emperor

Akbar(15561605) was a tomb. In 1526, Babur led the foundation ofMughal Empire in India. The Mughal

Empire, however, remained in an unsettled state, constantly challenged by the native rulers, until Akbar

consolidated the empire. To mark the consolidation ofMughal Empire and legitimize the rule ofthe dynasty,

Akbar built the tomb ofhis father Humayun, which was completed in 1571, adjacent to the Chisti shrine of

Nizam ud-Din Auliya in Delhi [Lowry 1987, 136]. Since then, Mughal rulers patronised some ofthe finest

tomb buildings and the tradition reached at its apex with the construction ofTaj Mahal at Agra.

From 1707 to 1857, a number ofrulers ascended the Mughal throne, however, not a single significant tomb

was constructed for any ofthe emperor. The process began with the death ofAurangzeb. He was buried in

an open grave at Daulatabad at the dargah ofShaikh Burhan al-Din. His grave was marked by a simple stone

cenotaph. This was in accordance with the final wishes ofAurangzeb. It may be noted that even ifAurangzeb

would have not made such a wish, his successors were unable to construct any magnificent edifice over his

grave due to the war ofsuccession that broke among them.

The political turmoil that began with Aurangzebs death ceased only in 1857 with the final eclipse ofthe

Mughal Empire. The struggle for authority was most explicitly expressed by burials ofroyalty. In a period of

150 years, only two modest marble enclosures were constructed in the name oftomb for the rulers in vicinity

ofchistidargahs. This has already been pointed out by the recent scholarship that even the modest tombs of

the Mughal emperors, for instance, tombs of Babur and Aurangzeb, exerted great influence as it was

benefited from the religious dogma [Brand 1993, 323].

Here one may note that the monuments commemorating the death oflater Mughal rulers may not have

architectural significance but the sites selected for burial of these rulers played a prominent role in the

contemporary political and cultural landscape.

The graves ofroyalty were found at the following sites:

Dargah of Shaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki and


5/27

Dargah of Nizam ud-Din Auliya and

Humayuns Tomb

Dargah of Shaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki: the dynastic graveyard

Thedargah of Shaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki became the most preferred place for the royal burial in the

later Mughal period. It may be noted that even when the emperors died outside Delhi, inevitably, their bodies

were brought to the imperial capital for burial. Bahadur Shah I died due to illness on February 27, 1712 atLahore. It was in Lahore a monumental mausoleum was erected for the Mughal Emperor Jahangir in 1621.

Lahore was, however, not considered as the proper last resting place for Bahadur Shah. His body was sent

to Delhi under the supervision of Bibi Mihr-Parwar, the emperors widow for interment. Thus, Delhi became

the unquestionable site for the royal burials. The emperor was buried in a muhajjar(tomb enclosure open to

sky) in the vicinity thedargah of Shaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki at Mehrauli near Moti Masjid, which was

built by him in 1709 [Irvine 1971, 135].

The architectonics of the tomb of Bahadur Shah I: Now & Then

The grave of Bahadur Shah I was interred in an oblong muhajjar resting on a low plinth (pl. 1). The muhajjaris entirely made of marble. The design of the enclosure, at present, appears heterogeneous. The plinth is

decorated by an intricate floral scroll comprising of iris flowers alternating with lotus buds. The northern and

southern sides, which are longer sides of the enclosure, consist of five panels. The western and eastern sides

have four panels. The eastern and northern sides are above the ground level which is part of the mosque

enclosure behind the tomb. The other two sides are in consistence with the ground level.

The eastern and western sides have blind trefoil arcades. The central panel of western side, however, consists

of a window with quatrefoil jali (tracery). The enclosure is entered from the southern side through a cusped

arched entrance. The entrance is higher than the enclosure wall. This entrance is flanked by intricate jalis set ina trefoil arch. Each unit of the tracery consists of four symmetrical foils. The spandrels are decorated with a

finely carved meander of conventionalised iris flower. These jalis are framed by rectangular pilaster commonly

seen in the later Mughal architecture. The base and the capital of the pilaster are decorated with acanthus

motif. The fluted shaft emerges from a lotus flower and is decorated with chevron pattern. Such pilasters are

earlier seen in the architecture of Aurangzeb, e.g., Badshahi mosque in Lahore. Other two panels on this side

form a blind arcade. The northern side, which faces the mosque, is comparatively well proportionate and

homogeneous in design. Three intricately carved jalis alternate with two bind cusped arches. The entire

enclosure wall was topped by a cinquefoil cresting which is now damaged at several places.

From a representation of the tomb of Bahadur Shah I in a company painting by artist Sita Ram (pl. 2) whichis in the British Library, London, it is evident that the original fabric and setting of the tomb has changed

considerably. The muhajjar was originally within an enclosure as can be seen in the painting. The southern

side of this enclosure was occupied by the muhajjar. It is preceded by an open courtyard. The northern side

had a dalan (hall) which is entered from an elegant arcade of baluster columns supporting cusped arches.

The dalan still survives (pl. 3). The eastern and western sides were closed by red sandstone walls, which no

more exist. A narrow staircase between the tomb and the eastern enclosure wall which descends to the

mosque enclosure, seen in the painting, still exists (pl. 1).

What is important to notice is that originally the entire plinth, on which the muhajjar stands, was enclosed bymarble jali (pl. 2), however, at present only part of this plinth is surrounded by the jali (pl. 1). This led to

exclusion of three graves from the muhajjar which originally might have been within the enclosure. Also,

originally, the entire southern side of muhajjar had elegant quatrefoil jali which gave the tomb enclosure a

graceful appearance. It seems that at some point of time the original jalis crumbled. In the process of


6/27

restoration, its, original fabric was lost.

Selection ofDargah as the last resting place

It was believed that the deceased would be benefited by the barqat (blessings) ofthe saint ifburied in the

vicinity ofa dargah. Yet another reason for selection ofa dargah as the last resting place was its importance

in life ofthe community. The dargah was a popularly visited site; hence, memories of those buried in its

vicinity would be immortalised. Here, one may note that the grave ofBahadur Shah I was venerated by thepeople. His urs (death anniversary) was an important festive occasion in Delhi. The travellers who visited

Delhi during the later Mughal period were quite fascinated by the festivities at the tomb ofBahadur Shah I

during the celebration ofhis urs.

Urs ofBahadur Shah I as described inMuraqqa -e Dehli

In hisMuraqqa -e Dehli, Dargah Quli Khan, an important official in the principality ofHyderabad, gives a

graphic account ofthe celebration during the urs ofKhuld Manzil (Bahadur Shah I). He stayed in Delhi from

1737 to 1741. He writes, The Urs ofKhuld Manzil is celebrated on the 23rd day of[month ofsacrifice]

Muharram-ul-Ihram. His grave is situated beside the grave ofHazrat Qutb-ul-Aqtab. His [Khuld Manzils]Begum, Mehr Parwar, with the help of Hayat Khan Nazir, starts the arrangements for the decoration of

lamps [at the grave] a month in advance. Chandeliers of all kinds are hung and the artisans from the royal

house come and give the lamps the shape oftree which when lighted put to shame both the Cyprus and the

boxwood trees. When the place is fully lighted, it dazzles like sunlight and overshadows the moon. The sun

realising its unimportance sets and does not show its face before dawn. The towers oflamps throw lights as

high as the sky. The bunglows in every lane shine as bright as the Valley ofTur.

Hand in hand, the lovers roam the streets while the debauched and the drunken unmindful ofthe mushatsib

[kotwal] revel in all kinds ofperversities. Groups ofwinsome lads and novices [in this trade] violate the faithofthe believers through their unappreciated acts which are sufficient to shake the very roots ofpiety. There

are beautiful faces as far as the eye can see. All around prevails a world ofimpiety and immorality in different

hues. The whores and lads entice more and more people to this atmosphere oflasciviousness. Nobles can be

seen in every nook and corner, while the singers, quwwals, and beggars outnumber even the flies and the

mosquitoes. In short, both the nobles and the plebians quench the thirst oftheir lust here. But however, it is in

ones welfare and prudence to ignore these immodesties [Khan 1989, 1718].

Representation ofurs ofBahadur Shah I in a nineteenth century painting

From a painting entitled the Catafalque of the Emperor Bahadur Shah Idated early nineteenth century inthe Victoria and Albert Museum Collection, it can be suggested that the grave of Bahdur Shah remained

popular in early nineteenth century as well. This is a rare painting which depicts probably the celebration of

urs ofthe Emperor Bahadur Shah I. The observations made by Dargah Quli Khan, in second half ofthe

eighteenth century, are also captured in this early nineteenth century painting.

It seems, however, that the artist has created the image from what he heard about the festivity and not

through direct observation as the topography ofthe place is not accurate. In this painting, the background

consists oftwo distinct zones: the left part is the white faade ofthe palace with a jharokha. The palace

seems to be the Zafar Mahal at Mehrauli. The right part consists ofa garden. This division sets up the stage

against which the drama unfolds.

Against the architectural background, behind cluster ofpeople, is shown a prince astride a bedecked

elephant. From the garden, on the other side, appears a royal horse. The elephant and horse create a


7/27

demarcating line between the populace in front and men in procession at the back. Some of them carry

candles in procession. Against the garden is shown the bedecked shrine with a canopy placed diagonally. In

front ofthe right corner ofthe shrine is a tall staffcovered heavily by black cloth. From its top protrude a

hand. Smaller versions ofthis hand can be seen all along the front ofthe tomb from which dangles colourful

bundle ofclothes. The hand was one of the imperial Mughal symbols carried when the emperor appeared

anywhere. It is frequently depicted in paintings ofPadshahnama ofShah Jahan [Beach & Koch 1997, 28,

24,42].

The artist succeeded in capturing the mood ofthe festival. Throng ofpeople from various strata ofsociety are

shown flooding at the site. The artist has shown them in different views; sometime figures are cut to indicate

that their numbers are not restricted only to the picture plane. The empty space on the left side of the

foreground and in the centre creates a breathing space in an otherwise crowded composition. The artist has

particularly shown multitude ofwomen dressed in beautiful attire, jewellery, and footwear. Their palms and

fingers are shown coloured with mehndi. Though the treatment ofhuman figures is static yet a great sense of

movement is created through their gestures and postures as well as gaze. The garden with barely visible

branches and trunks ofthe tree indicate the darkness ofnight when not even a single star is in the sky. Yet the

festival site is shown in brilliant light. Everything seems to be illuminated. The bright colour palette, further,heightens the spirit ofcelebration.

It is, thus, clear that the modest grave ofBahadur Shah I emerged as a significant site not only for the royal

family but also for the general public ofDelhi.

Other rulers buried near the dargah of Shaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki

Two other Mughal rulers, Rafi ud-Darjat (February 28, 1719June 6, 1719) and Rafi ud-Daulah (June 8,

1719September 19, 1719) were buried near the dargah ofShaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki. Here one

may note that Rafi-ud-daulah died in a camp at Bidyapur [Irvine 1971, 431]. Yet, his body was sent to Delhiwhere it was buried beside his brother Rafi ud-Darjat [Irvine 1971, 432]. These rulers were merely puppets

and ruled for a briefperiod with no time to commemorate a tomb building. Since, their rule was supported by

the nobility, they were given proper burial in the vicinity ofthe dargah ofShaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar Kaki.

It has already been observed that the tenure ofEmperor Bahadur Shah I and other two rulers were too short

and unstable for construction ofany magnificent tomb. What is intriguing to notice is that the three last Mughal

rulers, Shah Alam II (r. 17591806), Akbar II (r. 18061837), and Bahadur Shah II (r. 18371857) also

desired to be buried in the muhajjar ofBahadur Shah I, however, his desire was never fulfilled. One may

question what prompted these rulers to select the muhajjar ofthe tomb ofBahadur Shah I as their last resting

place when they had the resources to construct tombs for themselves? This is evident from the fact that all

these three rulers patronised architecture. In fact, Shah Alam II constructed tombs for his mother and

daughter. These tombs, known as Lal Bangla, are the largest tombs constructed by any later Mughal ruler.

Yet he did not construct his tomb. Similarly, Akbar II and Bahadur Shah II constructed palaces but not their

tombs.

Michael Brand, an eminent scholar, has already pointed out the great respect orthodox burial enjoyed at the

Mughal court due to Quranic injunction [Brand 1993, 323333]. In case ofburial and entombment ofthe last

three Later Mughal rulers, it seems, other issues were also involved except for the religion which prescribes

an uncovered grave exposed to the purifying rain and dew as a symbol ofhumility [Brand 1993, 324]. Theconsideration was ofacquiring religious sanction to rule when political power was constantly shrinking and

passing into the hands ofthe British. The emperors were not only rulers but also pirs,a fact, also attested by

contemporary painting which depicts these rulers seated on the throne with a rosary in their hands. The close

association ofthe court and the dargah ofthe Bakhtiyar Kaki is further arrested by the fact that pirzadas


8/27

(descendants ofsaints), encouraged Akbar II and Bahadur Shah Zafar to accept disciples or murids who

acknowledged the spiritual guidance ofthe king [Spear 2002, 74]. Thus the divine right ofthe emperor was

well established. Such a practice empowered the modest graves of later Mughal emperors, which

symbolically, ifnot architecturally, exerted more prestige. The modest muhajjar ofBahadur Shah I, in the first

halfofthe nineteenth century, became the dynastic graveyard for the later Mughal rulers.

The dargah ofShaikh Nizamuddin Auliya: Tomb ofMuhammad Shah

Muhammad Shah (r. 17191748) had a long reign compared to other Later Mughal rulers. He was the only

emperor who built his tomb during his lifetime. He preferred the site ofthedargah ofShaikh Nizamuddin

Auliya as his last resting place. Previously, at this site was buried the Mughal princess Jahan Ara Begum,

daughter ofShahjahan, in an open grave surrounded by an elegantly carved marble enclosure. In fact, it was

the dargah ofShaikh Nizamuddin Auliya which was extremely significant for the Mughal royal family prior to

the Later Mughal period when the focus ofroyalty shifted to the dargah ofShaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar

Kaki. However, this shift became more pronounced in the early nineteenth century.

Architectonics of the tomb ofMuhammad Shah

The Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah is also buried in a muhajjar (pl. 5) which is closely modeled on the

tomb ofJahan Ara Begum. However, it is more intricately carved. Over an ornate platform rests the grave of

Muhammad Shah. This is surrounded by an oblong marble enclosure which consists offive panels on the

eastern and western sides and three panels on northern and southern sides. The central panel on the eastern

side is constructed as an elegant double arched entrance with marble doors. The outer cusped arched

entrance gracefully connects with the inner arch. The intrados are intricately carved. Fine carving of

meandering floral scroll can also be seen on the spandrels. The entrance is flanked by columns. The original

upper parts of the columns no more exist. The corners of the enclosure are provided with rectangular

pilasters, a characteristic feature ofthe later Mughal architecture. The original finials over these pilasters dontmore exist any more. An elegant floral cresting forms the upper part of the enclosure wall which is also

broken at several places and are reconstructed.

In this enclosure were also buried Nawab Sahiba Mahal, wife ofMuhammad Shah, his daughter, who was

married to the son ofNadir Shah, and her infant daughter. A fine tomb ofsimilar type was also constructed

for the Mughal prince Mirza Jahangir by his mother Nawab Mumtaz Mahal Begum, wife ofAkbar II.

Humayuns Tomb: Burial ground for the defeated

It is significant to note that burial ofa number of Later Mughal rulers went unmarked as no edifice wasconstructed to commemorate their death. There bodies were simply interred in Humayuns Tomb (pl. 6).

Though a sixteenth-centurybuilding, Humayuns Tomb acquired a different connotation in Later Mughal

period because ofwhich it became important to incorporate Humayuns Tomb in the present discussion.

It is intriguing to notice that at Humayuns Tomb those emperors and princess ofthe Later Mughal period

were buried who were either defeated in war ofsuccession or dethroned and brutally killed by powerful

nobles. Thus, Humayuns Tomb became the burial ground ofthe defeated. The first such instance took place

immediately after death ofAurangzeb.

In the battle ofJajau, which took place in 1707, Shah Alam Bahadur Shah I (r. 17071712) emerged

victorious. His brother Azam Shah, contender for the throne, and his two nephews Wala-jah and Bidar

Bakht were killed in this war of succession. Bahadur Shah ordered that bodies of the princes were to be

dispatched in biers for burial in the mausoleum ofHumayun [Irvine 1971, 34]. He could have buried the


9/27

bodies ofhis defeated relatives at Jajau but he did not do so. Yet another contender for the throne, Kam

Baksh, youngest son ofAurangzeb, and his sons were defeated and killed in a war waged by Bahadur Shah I

in 1709 in Deccan. After paying due respect to their bodies, the victorious emperor ordered dispatch oftheir

bodies for burial in the mausoleumofthe Emperor Humayun [Irvine 1971, 6465].

The defeated princess could have been buried in Deccan. After all, in Deccan, at Daulatabad, was also

buried the former Emperor Aurangzeb. Now, the question arises what made Bahadur Shah to select tomb of

Humayun in Delhi as the last resting place for his defeated brothers. There could be two reasons. He sentbodies ofhis brothers and other princes to the imperial capital to convey that no contender for the throne had

survived and his rule was unchallenged.

Secondly, by selecting the Humayuns Tomb he was referring to the act ofhis father, Aurangzeb. One may

note that Aurangzeb after killing his brother Dara Shikoh, the heir apparent, interred his body at Humayuns

Tomb. By repeating his fathers act, Bahadur Shah I was justifying his deeds. One more reason which could

have prompted Bahadur Shah I to bury his defeated relative at Humayuns Tomb was to portray himselfas a

just ruler who gave respectable burial to his enemies. At the same time he was aware that memories ofthe

deceased would be overshadowed by the burial ofHumayun.

It has been observed that, later on, all those rulers who were dethroned and murdered were buried at

Humayuns Tomb. After a briefrule ofless than a year, emperor Jahandar Shah (r. February 27, 1712

February 11, 1713) was dethroned and imprisoned in Tripolia Gate by Farrukhsiyar with the help ofSayyid

brothers. He was brutally killed in imprisonment on February 11, 1713 [Irvine 1971, 254]. His dismembered

body was disgracefully displayed in the victory procession of the new Emperor Farruksiyar (17131719)

and was later buried in Humayuns Tomb [Irvine 1971, 255256]. History repeated itself once again.

Farrukhsiyar was dethroned, blinded, and imprisoned in Tripolia Gate by Sayyid brothers [Irvine 1971, 391].

Later on, they killed himbrutally [Irvine 1971, 392]. His body was also buried at Humayuns Tomb [Irvine

1971, 393-394]. Yet another emperor, Alamgir II (17541759) was killed by his prime minister and wasburied in the Humayuns Tomb [Sarkar 2008, 125].

Humayuns Tomb which symbolised consolidation ofthe Mughal Empire in India, ironically, also marked the

end ofthe Mughal dynasty. It was here, the last Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah II was arrested and with

this ended a dynasty which ruled for more that three centuries.

Imperial Palaces in the Later Mughal Delhi

The Later Mughal rulers of the eighteenth century could not contribute a single palace. The only palace

constructed at this time by the royal family was Qudsia Bagh Palace which belonged to Nawab QudsiaBegum, wife ofMuhammad Shah and mother ofAhmad Shah (r.17481754). It was only during the rule of

last two rulers, Akbar Shah II (180637) and Bahadur Shah II (183757) the practice ofbuilding palaces,

renewed though on a very small scale. These were the last efforts to a bid for posterity through architecture,

though, in a very small scale. Surviving on the pension ofthe British, they had neither resources nor power to

undertake any bigproject.

Palace of Akbar II or Zafar Mahal

Akbar II selected the vicinity ofdargah ofBakhtiyar Kaki for constructing his palace. It has already been

observed above that during the Later Mughal period Mughal rulers developed close association with this

shrine for various reasons. The selection of this site was in accordance with the existing Mughal palace-

building tradition. Through a close proximity ofsome oftheir fort palaces with the khanaqah ofChisti saints,

Mughal rulers attempted to link the secular and the sacred. The establishment ofFatehpur Sikri, commenced


10/27

in 1571 by Akbar (15561605) at the khanaqah of another Chishti saint Shaykh Salim is well known.

Similarly, the lakeside palace ofJahangir (160527) and Shah Jahan (162858) on the Ana Sagar in Ajmer

serves as a royal link with Indias premier dargah that ofMuin al-Din, in the town. In Delhi the Din-Panah of

Humayun (153040; 155556) was adjacent to the Chisti shrine Nizam al-Din Auliya; it was further more

site ofIndraprastha, associated with the Epic Mahabharata, thus linking the Mughal with both religious

authority and an ancient pre-Islamic Indian past [Asher 1993, 281].

Akbar II went a step further. By taking murids, who acknowledged the spiritual guidance ofthe king, heblurred the line between the royal and the divine. He was not only the Emperor but also the pir. What could

have been a better place than the vicinity ofdargah ofBakhtiyar Kaki for presentation ofsuch an image?

This palace was known as Lal Mahal [Husain 1991, 89]. It came to be popularly known as Zafar Mahal

because in 1848 Bahadur Shah erected a lofty gateway on the northern side ofthe palace. It was made so

high probably to admit elephants when they are required for ridingpurposes [Husain 1991, 89]. At present,

the palace is in ruins. Only the gateway has survived in its original form (pl. 7). It is an imposing three-

storeyed structure with chamfered corners. The central faade consists ofa monumental gateway. Set within

double arches, the gateway rises up to the second storey. Outer cusped arch rests on slender pilasters. The

wooden doorway is still surviving. Above the gateway is an arcade ofthree cusped arches. This central

section is flanked by wall divided into three storeys. The lower storey is decorated with a niche crowned with

a bangla roof, above this is a reliefofthe similar niche. The two are separated by a band. Second storey has

elegant window framed by slender pilasters crowned with bangla roof. Here, too, the motifis repeated in

relief. The upper storey has elegant jharokha. The entire faade is topped by a chajja over which is a

battlement. From inside the upper story ofthe gateway is an elegant structure. It is composed as a pillared

hall flanked by rooms.

Bahadur Shah II used to spend month ofmonsoon at this palace. He patronised the solona or Punkah

festival which was held each August towards the end ofthe rains, when he or his sons headed a procession tothe shrine ofQutub Sahib, the king on his elephant and his followers waving large fans [Spear 2002, 74].

Such procession was also a way to display the royal splendour.

By early 20th century this palace was already in ruins as evident from an ASI report of 192223. The

repairs to the Zafar Mahal at Mehrauli, commenced last year, were completed. They comprise the removal of

debris, replacement ofcertain roofs by new ones, and some petty repairs to the walls, chajja, floors, etc. The

palace is a typical specimen ofthe late Mughal architecture, exhibiting all the shortcomings ofthat period. The

interest attached to it is purely ofhistoric nature, as it was the residence ofthe last Mughal emperors [ASI

Report 1990a, 78].

What is intriguing to notice is that the tomb ofBahadur Shah I was also included in the palace precinct. This

feature was in discord with the established Mughal practice ofpalace building as tomb was never in such

close proximity to the palace.

Bahadur Shah Palaces in the Red Fort: Zafar Mahal and Hira Mahal

In Hayat Bakhsh garden of the Red Fort, Bahadur Shah II added several palace pavilions. The central

feature ofthis garden was Zafar Mahal or Jal-Mahal (Water Palace) constructed in the middle ofa large

water tank (pls. 8-9). This tank was constructed by Shahjahan [ASI Report 1990, 8]. However, during thereign ofBahadur Shah II, it was deepened through construction ofa parapet on the top ofthe ornamental

border [ASI Report 1990, 8]. Bahadur Shah built this palace in 1842 in the 6th year ofhis accession [Khan

1979, 72]. Originally, it had a central hall with rooms, suits, and verandah all around it. There was a bridge

on the eastern side ofthe palace which connected it with the mainland (pl. 9). Hayat Bakhsh garden as well


11/27

as various buildings within it was already in a state ofbad preservation and neglect by 1901, many ofthe

buildings were then sadly in need ofrepair; others were used as barrack rooms or stores, while the area in

which they stood was cut up by modern roads, and disfigured by unsightly military buildings. The old levels of

the ground had been obliterated and bewildered visitor to the palace of the Great Mogul wandered

aimlessly about from building to building [Sanderson 1990, 7].

Sanderson writes: In 19041905 excavations were made on a large scale in the Hayat Bakhsh garden,

which led bare the old tank and water channels, and the extent ofthe former, ofwhich the Zafar Mahal is thecentral feature, was accurately determined. In 1905-1906 the work was continued and a start made on the

reconstruction ofthe old channels. Fragments ofthe ornamental kerb and causeways were found between the

tank and the Sawan pavilion, and from these, together with the old plans which showed the border, it was

possible to carry out the work with perfect accuracy to the original. The large central tank built by Shah

Jahan appeared to have been deepened, probably at the same time as the Zafar Mahal erected in its centre,

and this had been done by building a parapet on the top ofthe ornamental border. .Accordingly, it was

felt that the traces ofthe parapets existence should not be destroyed and the missing portions ofit were,

therefore, restored, so that the tank could be filled up to the higher level [Sanderson 1990, 7].

At present, the palace rests on a plinth consisting offive openings on each side (pl. 8). The plinth is separated

from the palace by a chajja resting onbrackets. The faade ofthe palace is marked by three cusped arches

flanked by jalis set within arches that recall the baldachin covering. Some ofthe jalis no more exist. On each

side, from the central cusped arch projects an elegant jharokha. The central hall no more exists, however, the

rooms and verandahs around it are still there. A series ofstaircases lead to the upper storey. The upper

storey is separated from the main palace by a chajja resting on brackets. The setting ofthis red sandstone

building in the centre ofa garden, with beautiful marble pavilions ofShah Jahan on either side, creates a

pleasant visual effect.

Moti Mahal and Hira Mahal

Bahadur Shah constructed two pavilions on the east terrace ofHayat Bakhsh garden. Moti Mahal existed up

to the mutiny, but no trace ofit is left now. The other pavilion, Hira Mahal, built in 1842, still exists (pl. 10).

Each side consists ofthree cusped arches resting on four elegant pillars, except the side facing the river. Here,

the central cusped arch is flanked by rectangular openings serving as windows. In a contemporary drawing,

one can see that these windows were provided with lattice work (pl. 11). The central cusped arch also had a

jali with a window in the centre. From the painting it is evident that the river front was provided with a

parapet. One also comes to know that Hira Mahal was flanked by two European style buildings. The

company drawing also gives a glimpse ofcontemporary furnishing. Preceding the Hira Mahal is a canal. This

canal can also be seen in the painting with swimming ducks. This is the famous Nahar-i-Bahisht. According to

Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, the old canal contained, in the neighbourhood ofthe palace, 24 fountains ofsilver,

only the canal has remained [Khan 1979, 7273]. In accordance with other buildings on the river front,

Bahadur Shah constructed this palace in marble.

Now, the question arises what prompted the emperor to construct new palaces in the fort when some ofthe

significant existing buildings were in want ofrepair or mismanaged. Was he asserting his hereditary right over

the fort ofhis ancestors? These buildings in the fort were constructed in 1842. From the archival documents

[Political Progs 1846, 41] it is evident that the British, by 1846, had already made their mind to persuade the

emperor to leave the fort ofShahjahanabad and move to Qutb Delhi. It is speculated that the process mighthave started from the British side by 1842 and the emperor by constructing new buildings made his stand

clear that he had no intention of leaving his hereditary residence. By doing so Bahadur Shah was using

architecture as a symbol ofhis authority. This is yet again an old Mughal practice [Asher 1993, 281].


12/27

Religious buildings patronised by the Later Mughal rulers

There are very few religious buildings which are directly associated with the Later Mughal rulers. One ofthe

earliest buildings is the Moti Masjid (pls. 12-13). It was built by Bahadur Shah I in 1709. The mosque is

situated to the west ofthe grave ofBakhtiyar Kaki. This was the beginning ofconstruction activity at this site.

From this point onwards, as seen above, the vicinity ofthe shrine became the focal ofconstruction activities

ofthe Later Mughal rulers.

The mosque is closely modelled on Moti masjid ofAurangzeb. This is, however, a single-aisled mosque

unlike the double-aisled mosque ofAurangzeb. The prayer chamber is entered from three arched entrances

and is surmounted by three bulbous domes. The central bay on the eastern side projects from the wall. It is

flanked by slender engaged baluster like column. The corners ofthe faade are provided by rectangular

pilasters. This mosque is flanked by wings on northern and southern side. From inside, the bays are

interconnected with cusped arches resting on slender pillars with ornamental base and capital. The side

chambers are entered from rectangular openings framed by a blind cusped arch. The entire mosque is built of

white marble. The pavements are also built in white marble with black slate lining. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

mentions: The central dome fell by an earthquake, it has been promptly repaired [Khan 1979, 65]. The

mosque is within a walled enclosure.

Imperial contributions were further made to this shrine during the reign ofFarrukhsiyar. He built an elegant

marble enclosure around the grave, two entrances and reconstructed the original stucco mosque in white

marble. Catherine Asher, a renowned Art Historian, is ofthe opinion that these constructions were invoking

memories ofthe association ofMughal royalty with the Chisti shrine at Ajmer, which was severed in Later

Mughal period due to political disturbances [Asher 1992, 294295]. Now, can it be suggested that the

growing popularity ofthe shrine ofBakhtiyar Kaki was because he was the disciple ofMuin ud-Din Chisti,

the most venerated saint by Mughal rulers among all? Further, his dargah was the oldest in Delhi. Its

establishment coincided with the very beginning ofIslamic rule in India.

Other contribution ofthe rulers in the field ofreligious architecture was a wall around Dargah Chiraq-i Delhi.

This was added by Muhammad Shah. It has already been observed above that Muhammad Shah preferred

the vicinity ofNizam-ud-Din Auliya as his last resting place. One can sum up that despite political turbulence

and financial crisis, the patronage to the Chisti dargah continued. However, rulers did not construct many

mosques as Jama Masjid ofShahjahanabad remained the principal mosque for them. Here, passing reference

can be made ofChobi Masjid (The Wooden Mosque) built by Ahmad Shah in the Red Fort. The pillars and

arches ofthis mosque were ofwood. By 1850, it was already in dilapidated condition and was repaired by

the British [Khan 1979, 69] . The mosque existed up to the time of the rebellion of1857 [Sanderson 1990,

7]. It has been observed that a number ofimperial monuments were in a want ofrepair. It testifies that the

craftsmanship of these buildings as well as the material used were of inferior quality than the Mughal

monuments ofthe earlier period. This was natural as the state had limited resources.

To sum up it can be suggested that despite small scale and inferior material, the imperial patronage conveyed

strong message ofpower and authority on account ofthe locale where they existed and the subtle references

that were made to the great past. Instead ofscale, material, and ornamentation ofthe buildings, it was the

site, where a building was constructed, that conveyed authority and intention ofthe Later Mughal emperors.

REFERENCES

1. Archaeological Survey ofIndia Annual Report 191112. 1990. New Delhi: Swati Publications.


13/27

2. Archaeological Survey ofIndia Annual Report 192223. 1990. New Delhi: Swati Publications.

3. Asher, Catherine B. 1992.Architecture ofMughal India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Asher, Catherine B. 1993. Sub-Imperial Palaces: Power and Authority in Mughal India in Ars

Orientalis 23. Ann Arbour: University ofMichigan Press.

5. Beach, Milo Cleveland and Koch, Ebba, eds. 1997. King of the World: The Padshahnama (An

Imperial Mughal Manuscript from the Royal Library, Windsor Castle). Translated from Persian by

Wheeler Thackston. Great Britain: Thames and Hudson.

6. Brand, Michael. 1993. Orthodoxy, Innovation, and Revival: Considerations of the Past ImperialMughal Tomb Architecture inMuqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture X: .323.

7. Husain, Maulvi Muhammad Ashraf. 1991. Record ofAll the Quranic and Non Historical Epigraphs on

the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province.Memoirs ofthe Archeological Survey ofIndia. First

Published in1936.

8. Irvine, William. 1971.Later Mughals, Vols. 1 & 2. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.

First published in 1922.

9. Khan, Dargah Quli. 1989. Muraqqa-e-Dehli: The Mughal Capital in Muhammad Shahs Time.

Translated from Persian by Chander Shekhar and Shama Mitra Chenoy. Delhi: Deputy Publication.

Originally written between 1737 and 1741.10. Khan, Syed Ahmed. 1979.Atharal-Sanadid. Translated from Persian by R.Nath asMonuments of

Delhi: Historical Study. New Delhi: Ambika Publications. First Published in 1854.

11. Lowry, Glenn D. 1987. Humayun's Tomb: Form, Function, and Meaning in Early Mughal

Architecture,Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture IV: 136.

12. Political Progs. 17th Oct.1846. No. 31. National Archives ofIndia. Unpublished Manuscript.

13. Sanderson, Gordon, Shah Jahans Fort, Delhi. In Archaeological Survey of India Annual Report

191112. New Delhi: Swati Publications.

14. Sarkar, Sir Jadunath. 1997.Fall of the Mughal Empire, Vol. 2. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private

Limited. First published in 1934.15. Spear, Percival, 2002, Twilight ofthe Mughals: Studies in Late Mughal Delhi, in the Delhi Omnibus,

edited by R. E. Frykenburg. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. First Published in 1951.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Prof. (Dr.) Anupa Pande, HOD, Department ofHistory ofArt and Dean National

Museum Institute ofHistory ofArt, Conservation and Museology (NMI), New Delhi, for her invaluable and

insightful suggestions. Thanks are due to Ms. Susan Stronge, Senior Curator, Victoria and Albert Museum(V&A) and Mr. J.P.Losty, formerly head ofprints, drawings, and photographs at the British Library, London

for their help with the painting entitled The catafalque ofthe Emperor Bahadur Shah I (IM37-1911) from

the V&A collection. Thanks are also due to Dr. Jennifer Howes, Curator ofVisual Materials, British Library

for help with the painting entitled The tomb of the Emperor Shah 'Alam at the dargah ofQutb-Sahib at

Mahrauli (Add.Or.4811) from the British Library Collection. I am also grateful to the Archaeological Survey

ofIndia (ASI), Victoria & Albert Museum and British Library, London for granting permission to publish the

photographs. I am thankful to Dr. Chedha Tingsanchali, Associate Professor, Shilpakorn University, Thailand

and Shri Tejas Garge, Assistant Archaeologist, ASI for photographs. I am indebted to Ms. Ekta Sharma,

Assistant Editor, Penguin, and Shri Tathagata Mandal, Research Assistant, NMI for their invaluable

suggestions in editing.

DETAILS OF FIGURES


14/27

pl. 1. Tomb ofthe emperor Shah 'Alam Bahadur Shah I, 1712, Dargah ofShaikh Qutb Sahib Bakhtiyar

Kaki, Mehrauli, Delhi

pl. 2. Painting inscribed as the tomb ofthe Emperor Shah 'Alam at the dargah ofQutb-Sahib at

Mahrauli, Add.Or.4811, watercolour on paper, 1815, Artist: Sita Ram (fl. c.1810-1822), Copyright

British Library Board, British Library, London

pl. 3. Dalan (Hall), Tomb ofthe emperor Shah 'Alam Bahadur Shah I, 1712, Mehrauli, Delhi

pl. 4. The Catafalque ofthe Emperor Bahadur Shah I, IM 37-1911, c. early nineteenth century, watercolour,

gold on paper, Victoria and Albert Museum, London

pl. 5. Tomb ofthe emperor Muhammad Shah, Dargah ofShaikh Nizamuddin Auliya, Delhi

pl. 6. Tomb ofHumayun, completed in 1571, Delhi

pl. 7. Gateway, Zafar Mahal, 1848, Mehrauli, Delhi

pl. 8. Zafar Mahal, 1842, Red Fort, Delhi

pl. 9. Zafar Mahal, after R. Nath,Monuments ofDelhi: Historical Study, Illustration No. 43

pl. 10. Hira Mahal, 1842, Red Fort, Delhi

pl. 11. Hira Mahal, after R. Nath,Monuments ofDelhi: Historical Study, Illustration No. 44

pl. 12. Moti Masjid, outer faade, 1709, Mehrauli, Delhi

pl. 13. Moti Masjid, interior, 1709, Mehrauli, Delhi


15/27

pl. 1


16/27

pl. 2


17/27

pl. 3


18/27

pl. 4


19/27

pl. 5


20/27

pl. 6


21/27

pl. 7


22/27

pl. 8


23/27

pl. 9


24/27

pl. 10


25/27

pl. 11


26/27

pl. 12


27/27

pl. 13

Top

Print article

Copyright JHSS.ORG

Journal of History & Soc...Sciences - View Article

Documents