Medieval History

[Guest]

Some question(mark)s concerning Mughal architecture



Part I. Who really commissioned I'timad-ud-Daulah's mansion?



1. Introduction

This article is intended to put some question marks on Mughal architecture by principally investigating the "authorship" (of the building from scratch) of the mausoleum of Mirza Ghiyas Beg I’timad-ud-Daulah by his daughter Nur Jahan in part I.



The impression we get about Mughal royalty in standard works is that while the royal Mughal men were engaged in warfare and government, (some of) their women showed keen interest in and commissioned building and garden projects from scratch. For instance Hamida Begam was involved with Humayun’s Rauza, Mehr-un-Nisa ‘Nur Jahan’ with her father’s mausoleum, Sarais, gardens like Shalimar, etc.



True as this may be in a sense, in general, there is the more intricate question to what they really did commission and what they did design really. Just a notification by a authorized(= biased) court writer, thus in service of the same royal family, is not sufficient evidence. We have to look and investigate exactly what the real contributions were of the royal ladies.



The white-marbled mausoleum of the Persian I’timad-ud-Daulah, is a marvellous building. Some consider this building as the precursor to the mausoleum of his granddaughter Arjumand Banu ‘Mumtaz’. Some today even affectionately call it the ‘Baby Taj’ to refer to its connection with the Taj Mahal.

This mausoleum of Mirza Ghiyas Beg, standing in the middle of a quadripartite garden, is said to have been commissioned and/or designed by empress Nur Jahan. Reading any standard work will give this kind of information: “I'timad al-Daula (Emperor's Pillar) was the title bestowed upon Mirza Ghiyas Beg by Emperor Jehangir. Of Persian descent, Mirza Ghiyas Beg became the first treasurer and then the prime minister (wazir) under Emperor Jehangir. His daughter, Nur Jahan, later married the Emperor and commissioned the mausoleum to honor the memory of her father upon his death in 1622.” 1

Writers like Ellison Banks Findley go even farther and not only attribute the commissioning of the building to her, but also the design and thus making her into an important contributor of Mughal architecture. 2



But, when looking at important references in a contemporary source, there appears to be a serious problem with this. These references within this source, published in two versions by different authors and translated in English, have been totally overlooked and misjudged by all (standard works and) historians.

This eye-witness is Pelsaert, an employer of the Dutch factory in Agra. His writings include the Kroniek and the Remonstrantie. Both works were completed roughly in 1626. His patron, Van den Broecke has sent these notes with additions to Holland in 1628. The Flemish De Laet's De Imperio Magni Mogolis (The Empire of the Great Mogols), published this as second part as Fragmentum Historiae Indicae in 1631.

J.S. Hoyland published De Laet's work from Latin into English, but he didn't highlight significant notes with reference to the mausoleum, Agra city, etc.



Quoting from Pelsaert’s original works in Dutch, we get a better picture of some of these more important passages or quotes compared to Hoyland’s work on De Laet. Joannes de Laet has translated the notes of Van den Broecke, which are based almost entirely on Pelsaert’s, in Latin. His work, again, is translated in English. That is why I have concentrated mainly on Pelsaert’s works.



Before moving to the next paragraph concerning the mausoleum, a special note on the Dutch words 'hoff' and 'huys/huis' in Pelsaert’s writings: the first are Havelis or mansions with a (pleasure) garden. The second word particularly refers to the Haveli or mansion itself. See his definition of ‘hoff’ (The plural of ‘hoff’ is ‘hoven’): “ … have lots of extremely beautiful garden palaces, who not only contain charming trees, but also buildings, ...”. 3



2. Garden palace of I'timad-ud-Daulah

Pelsaert’s Remonstrantie, describing Agra city and all the palaces of nobles on the banks of the Yamuna river, to the north of the castle area, gives this information on I'timaduddaulah's garden palace: “... ; Asaf Khan's extremely beautiful and costly garden palace, lord of 8.000 horses; [the garden palace of] I'timaduddaulah, lord of 5.000 horses; ...” 4

The information in brackets is added by me to understand the second sentence better. For, it is an enumeration of the owners of garden palaces on the riverbank with reference also of their court rank. This description fits in a time when I’timad-ud-Daulah’s son, Abul Hasan ‘Asaf Khan IV’, was in a powerful position due to the marriage of his sister with the former ruler Jahangir and especially with the new ruler Shahjahan, who was married to his daughter Arjumand Banu ‘Mumtaz-uz-Zamani’.

The quote reminds of I’timad-ud-Daulah having a garden palace on the river bank of the Yamuna.



On the location of this garden palace, the Kroniek has this to say (this was around Nau Roz 1020 AH = march 21st 1611): “... and he went every evening by boat to the house/palace of I'timaduddaulah because of her, staying the whole night and he came back to the castle (Red Fort) in the morning to make the preparations (for a marriage).” 5



Pelsaert provides us with another clue. The garden palace has to be reached by boat from the castle (Red Fort). But, was this garden mansion on the western bank at the side of the castle or was it on the eastern bank?

Pelsaert gives two important references about the location, and also about the identity of the mansion. The 1st reference is in the Kroniek, where he states: “In which year I'timaduddaulah, the supreme vazir of the king, has died and has been buried in his garden palace on the other side of the river.” 6 Pelsaert, here, not only locates I’timad-ud-Daulah’s garden palace on the other side of the river, he also identifies this former garden palace with his recent mausoleum! The 2nd one is from the Remonstrantie: “ … have lots of extremely beautiful garden palaces, who not only contain charming trees, but also buildings, like the garden mansion of Sultan Parwez, the garden mansion of Nur Jahan Begam, the garden mansion of I'timaduddaulah, who was the father of Asaf Khan and the queen, in which he is also buried; ...”. 7

This settles this question of the location and identity. The pleasure pavilion complex with garden is the same as the mausoleum of the last owner named I'timad-ud-Daulah. The mansion turned later into a mausoleum did already exist during his lifetime from at least 1611 on, when Jahangir visited him regularly there for a marriage proposal. I'timad may have obtained the existing mansion between 1607 and 1611. Nowhere is stated that I'timad-ud-Daulah had commissioned his mansion! Obviously, it is as old as Akbar's regnal period, or perhaps older.

Thus, it raises important and new questions.



Obviously, when Nur Jahan did not design the mansion containing the cenotaph her father (and her mother, which was imitated in the Taj Mahal destroying the balance), which puts serious doubts to this contribution of her to Mughal architecture, who did commission its building. This, perhaps also puts question marks on other so-called contributions of her to architecture. What, then did she really contribute to the project turning the pleasure mansion with garden into a Rauza or garden tomb?



A note on the word Rauda or Rauza for a tomb, which literally means a garden. The Mughals had a preference for a burial in a tomb in the middle of a garden. In order to turn a pleasure mansion with garden into a tomb in a garden, some cosmetic changes had to be commissioned. The tomb itself within the complex with more buildings had to be planned to be placed centrally in a garden. Auxilliary buildings and decorations expressing too much pleasures of the mortal nobility when alive had to be demolished. Everything else expressing the worldly and serene beauty for a deceased could be retained or added. And every sign of power, richness and decadence had to be shown to the world.

This involved a lot of money, labour, and labourers. Costs of new materials (costly marble from Rajasthan or Gujarat), transportation of new material and of old material, transportational means, hiring chief masons, sculptors, calligraphers and common labourers, etc., who could create without destroying the origal design of the existing mansion; a construction plan and execution of the new empty and filled cenotaphs, cosmetic changes after the taste of the deceased, repairing jobs, maintenance of mausoleum and garden, etc. And she was not alone with this kind of repairing projects.



In general, there were two types of repairing projects for creating either mausoleums or mansions. The first involved the changing of existing mansions (of pleasure) during lifetime into mausoleums after death. The Remonstrantie clearly states that “ (garden mansions) …, when being a pleasure ground during lifetime, after death, they became tombs ...” 8

The second was a customary occurrence amongst royal members and some other nobility, to be granted or to having bought an existing mansion of a former eminent court official, and to arrange some cosmetical changes according to the personal taste, allowance and/or funds. See for instance how Sultan Khushrau got his palace: “To my son Khusrau a lakh of rupees was presented that he might build up for himself the house of Mun‘im Khān,* the (former) Khānkhānān, outside the fort.” 9

Thus, this reference of the Tuzuk substantiates this important fact that existing palaces or mansions were being used afterwards by the next owner and that these could be repaired or redecorated, according to their budgets. In this case 500.000 or 1 lakh or rupees was being used for repairing (rearranging or redecorating) the Haveli of the former Khankhana according to his own taste.

The mausoleum of I'timad-ud-Daulah clearly was the first type of a repairing project by Nur Jahan: decorated embellishments of motives here and there, and destruction of iconic features and auxilliary objects and buildings.



This brings us to the costs of this repairing project of Nur Jahan. Pelsaert gives the figure of turning the garden mansion into a garden mausoleum as already 3,5 lakh rupias at the time of making notes, and adds that it will exceed upto 10 lakh in the end. 10 The repairing allowance of Sultan Khushrau to his new preexisting palace was 1 lakh. Nur Jahan had spent more than thrice that amount, which hints at not only the repairing (redecorating, but also destroying and removing elements) process that had costed much money, but its maintenace does also add much to raise the expenses.



3. Conclusion

It is clear from the references in Pelsaert's works, a contemporary source, that Nur Jahan did not build the garden mansion, neither her father. He got into possession of an already existent riverside mansion complex with garden. She, thus, also cannot be claimed to have contributed to that part of Mughal architecture. Her only part was that she had commissioned to turn an already existing mansion of pleasure complex with garden into one of grief. Many of the Muslim and especially Mughal buildings (of nobles and saints) were changed in a similar fashion. Her role involved a repairing project, involving some (minor) cosmetical changes.



At what time this mansion was built and by whom remains a mystery. Perhaps it was built during Akbar, perhaps during the Afghans or even before, who knows? That Agra on both sides of the riverbanks was an important city, before Akbar and even before the Afghans, can also be deduced from Pelsaert's reference to and description of the eastern bank, hinting at the Afghan and pre-Afghan periods. But, it is also Jahangir's Tuzuk which substabtiates this. This will be dealt with in another part of the article.



The Khurasani (= actually Irani) claims of this mansion dates from roughly around 1611: The Khurasani faction got importance in the Jahangiri period after 1611, when he got married to Mehr-un-Nisa ‘Nur Mahal’, whose name of a mere ‘Lady of the Harem’ turned into that of a royal lady, now called ‘Nur Jahan’ Begam. At least at that time the mansion must have got into possession of her father, who was raised from the status of a prisoner for stealing royal money and being the father of a son who wanted to kill Jahangir. The dignity and truthfulness of this powerful, influential and intriguing 'junta-like' Khurasani or Irani family is questionable with these acts: stealing from the state, involved in plots to get rid of Jahangir through his blinded son (for which the involved Khurasani were executed and almost also Nur Jahan's father), again involved in plotting against Jahangir through the other son, getting hold of mansions of others (Raja Man Singh's palace and garden), etc.

But, Jahangir's motives are even more questionable: Getting rid of his war mate, the husband of Mehr-un-Nisa, and giving her traitor family high positions just to get married to her. Jahangir, strangely (or obviously?) doesn't mention his marriage in 1611 in his Tuzuk.



The white-marble “Baby Taj’ constructional plan, a mansion with four corner towers attached to the mansion, is thus not Nur Jahan's work, and thus also not her design and her project starting with constructing from scratch from 1622 on, so it definitely is not an achievement and contribution of her to Mughal architecture! This is a very important conclusion, amazingly overlooked (or perhaps ignored) by historians, with perhaps some far reaching implications.

And this is not the only question mark of this Mughal period. There are many more, almost all coming from the original court works and their writers!



In the next part, I will concentrate on more question marks concerning the so-called "Saracenic" (pre-)Mughal Muslim construction and architecture of Agra and its vicinity, based upon primary sources, which again have been overlooked.



If any question mark concerning a claim is so obviously wrong and crystal clear as in this case, that nonsensical claim should be removed immediately from standard works.



Notes

1. From Archnet: http://archnet.org/l...sp?site_id=7544

2. Findley, E.B.: Nur Jahan, Empress of Mughal India, 1993, New York. Oxford University Press, p. 228

3. Pelsaert, Francisco: De Geschriften van Francisco Pelsaert over Mughal Indie, 1627; Kroniek en Remonstrantie, 1979, ’s-Gravenhage. Publisher: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv. Published by D.H.A. Kolff and H.W. van Santen, page 250 (Kroniek: pp. 59-242, Remonstrantie: pp. 243-335.)

The Dutch original, part of the reference in note 7, is: “ … hebben uyttermaten veel schoone hoven, die niet alleen playserich van geboomte, maer niettemin van gebousel sijn, ...”.

4. idem, page 248. The Dutch original is: “... ; Assoffs Chan sijn uyttermaten schoon ende costelijck hoff, heer van 8.000 peerden; [het hoff van] Ethemam Daulatt, heer van 5.000 peerden; ...”.

5. idem, page 134. The Dutch original is: “.... ende ginck alle avonden te water met een schuyt in huis van Ethemadaulatt om haerent wille, blijvende daer den heelen nacht ende des morgens quam wederom te water int casteel om alle voorvallende saecken te regelen.”

6. idem, page 157. The Dutch original is: “In welck jaer Ethemadaulatt den oppersten whasier des coningx overleden is ende in sijnen hoff, die aen de overkant van de rivier staet, begraven.”.

7. idem, page 250. The Dutch original is: “ … hebben uyttermaten veel schoone hoven, die niet alleen playserich van geboomte, maer niettemin van gebousel sijn, als den hoff van Solthan Perwes, den hoff van Nour Ziahan Begem, den hoff van Ethemaddaulatt, vader van Asoff Chan ende de coninginne geweest, waar ook in begraven ligt; ...”.

8. idem, page 250. The Dutch original is: “ (hoven) …, want verstrect haer in hun leven tot vermaeck ende, doodt sijnde, tot begraeffenisse, ....”.

9. The Tūzuk-i-Jahangīrī Or Memoirs Of Jahāngīr by Alexander Rogers and Henry Beveridge, 1909–1914, London. Royal Asiatic Society. Also at: http://persian.packhum.org/persian/books,

10. Pelsaert, page 250.