Aesthetics and Colonial Othering of India by Islam and West

[ramana]

I got the idea for this thread after listening to Akbaruddin Owaisi's rant that all that India will have is a broken temple and naked statues of Ajanta and Ellora if the Muslims take away Qutb Minar, Red Fort and Taj Mahal. I was struck by the sheer ignorance of India and her culture.
I also had been bothered by Western interpretations of Indian architecture and the so called Indo Saracen style. And how Westerners promoted that style to be superior to earlier phases.

Then there is the syncretic nonsense promote by Chacha Nehru as cruel joke on India that is Bharat.

So I am gathering relevant posts on the subject of how India was othered by Islam and the West using their flawed sense of aesthetics.

Please no polemics and rants. I would hope to turn this into a monograph and show the chatterati that the Internet Hindu can critique his critics.

[ramana]

Let’s talk to Owaisi, not jail him!: Tavleen Singh

WHAT has worried me most about the manner in which Akbaruddin Owaisi’s latest hate speech has been dealt with is that everyone appears to have missed the point. It is not his being jailed that matters but what he said in his speech and more than his speech what matters is the applause it evoked form his huge audience. It is the huge crowds that greeted him at Hyderabad airport when he returned from London that we need to think about and not the condemnation of his speech by Muslims of liberal bent.

Incidentally, it is intriguing that a man with such an Islamist approach to life should go to a godless, Western city like London at all but to analyze why so many dedicated Islamists flock to London for holidays and healthcare would need a separate column, so today I am going to stick to analyzing Owaisi’s speech.

‘Communal’ viewpoint

What makes the speech important is not that Owaisi made it. He is a provincial politician of no current national relevance and so many of my more ‘secular’ brethren will I am sure label me ‘communal’ for even bothering to analyze it. But, according to my ‘communal’ viewpoint what makes the speech important is that it reflects the thinking of a worryingly large number of lower middle class, semi-educated Indian Muslims. I have met them in the bazaars of Moradabad and Lucknow and in the bazaars of Delhi and Mumbai and what has annoyed me every time is their contempt for India.

This comes out in exactly the way Owaisi said it in his speech and this is what makes this speech so important. At one point in his diatribe against India and Indians, he said that those who said Muslims should go to another country did not realize that if they went they would take with them the Taj Mahal, the Red Fort and the Qutab Minar. “And, what will be left here then? A broken Ram temple in Ayodhya and some naked statues in Ajanta and Ellora.”

Analyze this comment and you see what ordinary Muslims across the Indian sub-continent have long believed that there was nothing worth preserving of India’s ancient civilization. Until Islam arrived, they believe, India was a cultural and civilizational desert and if you try arguing that this is illiterate rubbish, as I often have done, then the conversation ends or the subject gets changed.

We should have been talking of these things long ago but because in the interests of ‘secularism’ the contribution of ancient India to the civilization of the world is ignored in Indian schools there are not enough Hindus who can talk about it. Muslims, on the other hand, have their history hammered into their heads from the time they are small children in the ‘madrassa’ and even at home so they have a confidence about who they are. This would be fine if it stopped there, but it is usually accompanied by contempt for India because of a deep disdain for the Hindus religion with its polytheism and its idols.

This brings us to the part of his speech for which Owaisi is now in jail. He said to cheers and derisive laughter from his audience, “They have many gods… Ram, Lakshman, Durga, Ganesha… and every month they give birth to a new one. Who is Bhagyalakshmi… but leave it, I do not want to ruin the auspicious atmosphere of this gathering by taking their abominable names.”

Then came more insults about how Hindus and their ‘sacred mother cow’ that they sell in the bazaars, and that the police permit until Muslims come forward to buy them. If Muslims did not eat beef, he added contemptuously, then the ‘mata’ of the Hindus would eat up every blade of grass in India and it would become a desert.

Analyze this part of the speech and what you find is not just scorn for India’s main religious traditions, but a hatred of them. Yet if someone like me (and I am not a Hindu) ever dares point out in my columns that there are flaws in the Islamic idea that it alone has all the religious answers or that it is hard in the 21st century to believe in prophets and revealed religions then I get labeled ‘communal’.

Instead of labeling, if we discussed the ideas of men like Akbaruddin Owaisi we would find that it would give us a chance to understand what India should stand for and stand up against.

The fundamental idea of India is that, despite being mostly Hindu in population, it stands for freedom of worship and that this necessarily entails respect for everyone’s religious ideas, no matter how stupid they may be. So although Owaisi’s speech would have been acceptable, and applauded, in Saudi Arabia it has no place in India. It is unfortunate that because of a dominance of leftists and liberals in India’s intellectual space these things are not only never acknowledged but viewed as politically incorrect.

Please remember that the party to which Akbaruddin Owaisi belongs, that is virtually his family party, the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalmeen (MIM) was until recently a member of the UPA government.

The Congress Party flaunts is disdain for ‘communal’ Hindu political parties, but never hesitates to ally with dangerously sectarian Muslim groupings, including the one in Kerala that was responsible for chopping off a teacher’s hand because they objected to a text on the Prophet Mohammed.


Mindset of Muslims

Akbaruddin Owaisi’s speech gives us a chance to start a discussion on whether Islamism is acceptable in India or not. Islamism is the religious ideology of Owaisi and his political party and since they get elected, over and over again, in Hyderabad they must be allowed to express their ideology.

The idea of India includes not just freedom of worship but freedom of speech, so Owaisi has a right to say what he did. Instead of throwing him in jail thereby making him an even bigger hero in the eyes of his constituents would it not have been better for us to have discussed his ideas publicly and made him explain exactly what he meant?

Only a real debate will help change the mindset of Muslims who continue to be taught a version of Indian history that is blinkered, bigoted and untruthful and that teaches them to believe that India is worthy only of their contempt except when it is ruled by Muslims.

It is more than time that this changed but for it to happen we need political will and so far there is no sign of it.

[ramana]

quote="Advait"
Al-BBC is just a few articles away from opening supporting terrorism against India. And there are still Indians who read it because of it will "improve their English"./quote


We need to separate Britsh attitudes from their literary qualities. Whatever their continuing attitudes are towards India/Indians, we should separate out the aspects of their culture we 'like" and continue appreciating them.

PS: Oh it helps to ignore thinking on why or how we came to "like" what we "like" of aspects of British culture.

I sometimes find the same also applies to aspects of Indo-Persian architecture e.g. it helps to ignore thinking about why or how "we" (as in just about everbody on the planet who has seen it in person, in a photo, on TV, etc.) came to like what we like of aspects of Indo-Persian architecture, like the the Taj Mahal.

http://www.worldwanderingkiwi.com/wp-co ... -India.jpg

[ramana]

I sometimes find the same also applies to aspects of Indo-Persian architecture e.g. it helps to ignore thinking about why or how "we" (as in just about everbody on the planet who has seen it in person, in a photo, on TV, etc.) came to like what we like of aspects of Indo-Persian architecture, like the the Taj Mahal.

http://www.worldwanderingkiwi.com/wp-co ... -India.jpg

'Indo-persian' architecture is Indian architecture only...
Taj Mahal is Tejo Mahalaya... just like several more islamic monuments are just occupied ones...

Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?

The True Story of the Taj MahalThis article by P. N. Oak (from Pune, India) provides an overview of his research and lists his 109 proofs of how the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu temple palace, built not by Shah Jahan but originally at least 500 years earlier in 1155 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a Vedic temple. Mr. P. N. Oak is another who has done much research into this topic, and such a study is hardly complete without considering his findings. The evidence he presents here is a most interesting read, whether you agree with it all or not, or care for some of the anger in his sentiment. Mr. Oak has presented his own conclusions in his books, most notably Taj Mahal--The True Story (ISBN:

The Badshahnama. The Badshahnama is the history written by the Emperor's own chronicler. This page shows how Aurangzeb had acquired the Taj from the previous owner, Jai Singh, grandson of Raja Mansingh, after selecting this site for the burial of Queen Mumtaz.


There are some interesting photos... don't miss them.

Islam has tried to usurp Indian monuments and architecture, while europeans have tried to usurp Indian language and culture(they are trying to portray it as 'Indo-european'...)

[ramana]

quote="brihaspati"
We need to separate Britsh attitudes from their literary qualities. Whatever their continuing attitudes are towards India/Indians, we should separate out the aspects of their culture we 'like" and continue appreciating them.

PS: Oh it helps to ignore thinking on why or how we came to "like" what we "like" of aspects of British culture. /quote

I sometimes find the same also applies to aspects of Indo-Persian architecture e.g. it helps to ignore thinking about why or how "we" (as in just about everbody on the planet who has seen it in person, in a photo, on TV, etc.) came to like what we like of aspects of Indo-Persian architecture, like the the Taj Mahal.

http://www.worldwanderingkiwi.com/wp-co ... -India.jpg

You are of the opinion that this belongs to the thread? Not that it does not have merit of its own. By the way, is it fair to assume that everyone "appreciates" the stated building ? I for one never visited it. In our batch of students, half the group chose not to - along with me.

Any way, is there any Indo-UK connection ?

By the way, the Brits who occupied it when they ran in rampage over UP - actually had decided to demolish and sell off the place at first for scrap marble in 1831. See how much the British valued the place! Even Indians or others around did not offer the minimum satisfactory price of 1.5 lakhs! If Jats are considered Indians, they also didn't appreciate the building - besides the Brits of the stature of Bentinck - for they stripped it off a lot of "splendour".

People confused over their feelings over totalitarianisms as Islamism or communism, perhaps like Rabindranath Thakur, belong to the generation of Indians who swallowed the developing Victorian imperialist propaganda about Indo-Saracenic hocus-pocus and gushed about "tear drops in the face of time". Because the Brit imperialists and other icons like Rabindranath jumped into the band-wagon, perhaps a lot of other Indians felt compelled to mimic them to show that they were "cultured" and "loyal servants". Naturally, it perhaps helps to ignore how the whole game of Taj-appreciation started.

Yes the Taj Mahal cult has the Anglo-Islamic propaganda angle, and perhaps tenuously becomes relevant for the thread - but I am not so sure.

[ramana]

quote="eklavya"
I sometimes find the same also applies to aspects of Indo-Persian architecture e.g. it helps to ignore thinking about why or how "we" (as in just about everbody on the planet who has seen it in person, in a photo, on TV, etc.) came to like what we like of aspects of Indo-Persian architecture, like the the Taj Mahal.

http://www.worldwanderingkiwi.com/wp-co ... -India.jpg

/quote


'Indo-persian' architecture is Indian architecture only...
Taj Mahal is Tejo Mahalaya... just like several more islamic monuments are just occupied ones...

Taj Mahal: Was it a Vedic Temple?

The True Story of the Taj MahalThis article by P. N. Oak (from Pune, India) provides an overview of his research and lists his 109 proofs of how the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu temple palace, built not by Shah Jahan but originally at least 500 years earlier in 1155 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a Vedic temple. Mr. P. N. Oak is another who has done much research into this topic, and such a study is hardly complete without considering his findings. The evidence he presents here is a most interesting read, whether you agree with it all or not, or care for some of the anger in his sentiment. Mr. Oak has presented his own conclusions in his books, most notably Taj Mahal--The True Story (ISBN:

The Badshahnama. The Badshahnama is the history written by the Emperor's own chronicler. This page shows how Aurangzeb had acquired the Taj from the previous owner, Jai Singh, grandson of Raja Mansingh, after selecting this site for the burial of Queen Mumtaz.


There are some interesting photos... don't miss them.

Islam has tried to usurp Indian monuments and architecture, while europeans have tried to usurp Indian language and culture(they are trying to portray it as 'Indo-european'...)

In matters of Indian architecture, the authority on the subject is the Archaeological Survey of India. This is what the ASI says about the Taj Mahal:

http://asi.nic.in/asi_monu_whs_agratajmahal.asp

Taj Mahal, the pinnacle of Mughal architecture, was built by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan (1628-1658), grandson of Akbar the great, in the memory of his queen Arjumand Bano Begum, entitled ‘Mumtaz Mahal’. Mumtaz Mahal was a niece of empress Nur Jahan and granddaughter of Mirza Ghias Beg I’timad-ud-Daula, wazir of emperor Jehangir. She was born in 1593 and died in 1631, during the birth of her fourteenth child at Burhanpur. Her mortal remains were temporarily buried in the Zainabad garden. Six months later, her body was transferred to Agra to be finally enshrined in the crypt of the main tomb of the Taj Mahal. The Taj Mahal is the mausoleum of both Mumtaz Mahal and Shah Jahan.

[ramana]

The Taj Mahal is indeed a universal symbol of architectural beauty. That's not to say 'everyone' appreciates it, because, inter alia, some people get into a terrible muddle when it comes to art, literature, architecture, etc., produced by cultures other than their own.

eklavya ji, I personally find the Taj Mahal rather exquisite. But what I don't understand is this: More than all other other "Indo-Saracenic" monuments we have, this one is very Persian. In fact, there are many buildings like it in Iran itself. You should go and check it out, and like me, you will marvel at all that beauty even though its from a culture admittedly not our own. But could you help me understand why the UN has not selected any "Wonder of the World" from Iran itself? Iran has no paucity of beautiful architecture much like the Taj Mahal - in fact from the same school of architecture. Instead, the Hagia Sofia from Turkey has been selected, and an extremely Persian Taj Mahal from India, while Iran itself is left out! India has such a wealth of other architecture (even what's left) that one wonders why they picked the Taj Mahal. And if that's the style that fascinates them, they could have had their fill in Iran, which has been completely ignored. That's a question my Iranian friends have - how would you answer them?

Thanks for filling us in on the universal values the UN espouses. It may help expand our minds, I suppose. But this interesting geographical selection of "wonders" seems a little strange to some of us. Apart from teaching us to appreciate other cultures, wouldn't you agree there is good reason for our suspicions?

[ramana]

^^^^

[quote="eklavya"

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/252

An immense mausoleum of white marble, built in Agra between 1631 and 1648 by order of the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favourite wife, the Taj Mahal is the jewel of Muslim art in India and one of the universally admired masterpieces of the world's heritage.

This should be in offtopic or any other threads strictly

1) Does Islam permit mausoleum as in Tajmahal. Islam never allows graves to be of pleasure.
2) Taj Mahal looks unislamic in name. there are many islamic buildings etc which have distinct Islamic name.
Lot more questions, but no answers.

guess we will never know of those times.

[ramana]

quote="eklavya"The Taj Mahal is indeed a universal symbol of architectural beauty. That's not to say 'everyone' appreciates it, because, inter alia, some people get into a terrible muddle when it comes to art, literature, architecture, etc., produced by cultures other than their own. /quote

eklavya ji, I personally find the Taj Mahal rather exquisite. But what I don't understand is this: More than all other other "Indo-Saracenic" monuments we have, this one is very Persian. In fact, there are many buildings like it in Iran itself. You should go and check it out, and like me, you will marvel at all that beauty even though its from a culture admittedly not our own. But could you help me understand why the UN has not selected any "Wonder of the World" from Iran itself? Iran has no paucity of beautiful architecture much like the Taj Mahal - in fact from the same school of architecture. Instead, the Hagia Sofia from Turkey has been selected, and an extremely Persian Taj Mahal from India, while Iran itself is left out! India has such a wealth of other architecture (even what's left) that one wonders why they picked the Taj Mahal. And if that's the style that fascinates them, they could have had their fill in Iran, which has been completely ignored. That's a question my Iranian friends have - how would you answer them?

Thanks for filling us in on the universal values the UN espouses. It may help expand our minds, I suppose. But this interesting geographical selection of "wonders" seems a little strange to some of us. Apart from teaching us to appreciate other cultures, wouldn't you agree there is good reason for our suspicions?

Carl, among the World Heritage sites recognised by UNESCO, there are several in Iran:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ir

The Taj Mahal is not the only Indian site on the UNESCO World Heritage list. There are several others:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/in

[ramana]

Carl, among the World Heritage sites recognised by UNESCO, there are several in Iran:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ir

The Taj Mahal is not the only Indian site on the UNESCO World Heritage list. There are several others:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/in

Of course Iran has "heritage", we hardly need the UN to acknowledge that. But we're talking about the famously designated "wonders of the world". IIRC, nothing from Iran figures in the wonders of the ancient world, nor the wonders of the modern world. Secondly, it is a bit of a stretch to say that they couldn't find anything other than the Taj Mahal in all of India, even though a lot of the other stuff has been destroyed or mutilated. And if they liked the Taj so much, then as my Iranian friends say, "We have many Taj Mahals in Isfahan!". Surely it begs the question, and I think you understand that.

[ramana]

ah ekalavya ji,
are you claiming that taste in art or architecture has to be determined by majority voting, and once voted, like parliamentary representatives of heads of state - they have to be universally admired or followed or agreed to?

As I pointed out - this cult of Taj admiration seems to be rather a recent phenomenon, and neither the Brits nor Indians seem to have given it much "appreciation" even as late as middle of the nineteenth century. You do have a habit of pointedly ignoring counter-factoids! so you are saying that the Brits of 19th century - with someone representing the highest of the high of Britistan in India as Bentinck - did not follow the "universal" appreciation cult? Or the Jats were not Indians?

Are you disputing - that this appreciation is not much referred to in Indian texts, until the late 19th century - and started off only after Victorian imperialism had decided to play off the Anglo-Islamic card for India?

[ramana]

Note, its not just the context of India itself, but the fact that between the Hagia Sophia in Ottoman Turkey and the Taj Mahal in India they couldn't find anything else to "wonder" at and hype up. As if Persia didn't exist in between these two.

Its another matter that in Turkey you have the Sultan Ahmed 'Blue Mosque' which is as beautiful, and the Topkapi palace, etc. They had to choose a christian cathedral conquered and converted into a mosque. India has such a plethora of architectural styles, but they had to pick an extremely Persian Moslem mausoleum. But they leaped clean from Hagia sophia to the Taj Mahal, and that's the giveaway - right over the Persian Empire which was being buffeted by the Russians in the north-west and British India in the south-east.

Because the Anglo-Saxons have a flair for not just understatement, but the unstated. Its like the "axis of evil". It starts in Iraq, then Iran, and then jumps over a 9.5 million sq.mi. country called China and pegs the next node of the axis in North Korea.

Those who "unwittingly or willingly" peddle such stuff - their innocence is charming, even as they hector others on how to be broad minded and appreciate cultures other than your own.

[ramana]

One look at the Tanjore temple built in 1010 CE will tell you that the basic design of a Taj type structure (whether built by Shahjahan or not,) was existent half a millenium before Taj was claimed to have been built.

I have visited neither but going by the photos but in no way they look alike - at least the facades. Are they comparing internal spaces and floor layouts?

[ramana]

There is a long dispute in historical architectural innovation - regarding the hemispherical [and other mathematically defined curve profiles] dome. The hemispherical dome structure appeared almost simultaneously in Buddhist and Persian strata. They also had geographical and political overlap - so its hard to say who taught it to whom.

The latter day popularity of Islamic "domes" can be traced back to their secret admiration of Byzantine-Roman domes [in Rome and Hagia Sophia] and Persian remnants of Buddhist architecture. But we should be honest enough to recognize that by the time Persians still retained a taste for the dome - Indians had left it behind, with teh decline of Buddhism. The Chola temples were not curved-spherical domed, neither do surviving literature describe such styles in the north.

The very "dome" structure, with "minarets" - is more Romano-Persian, and the garden layout is based on Quranic-Biblical genesis narratives. The symbolism of "water" is different - from a "Hindu/Indian" represnetation, say as in Ankor Vat.

The branding of the Taj as "Indo-Saracenic", somehow retaining its non-Indian flavour with a base of "indian" is typically illustrative of the imperialist British ideological propaganda of representing and India, convenient for their image.

If one has to retain both "Indo" with "Saracenic" - it implies a conscious recognition that Indo- and Saracenic do not gel together to form a new homogeneous whole. If you can still trace the distinctions, surely the structure is not a proper meld.

The Taj as Indic or "Saracenic" belongs to a different thread - and is not relevant for this thread. If we still insist on expressing our admiration for it on this thread, we should be able to understand or trace, why we admire it. Are we sure we admire it for some intrinsic beauty, or because it has been touted in put texts from childhood as a symbol of undying grief for the beloved wife- which was not the reality, since the grief-stricken had many other wives, and marriages even after grief, and archeology now reveals that the complex was much concerned with generating economic income rather than pure "grief"?

Making a propaganda about "Taj" - was a subtle but self-explanatory line by the Victorian imperialists. The Brits were casting themselves as the successors of the Mughals - who wanted to retain their extra-Indian identity as a colonizing force that wanted to retain superiority over native society - but spin it as beneficial, "enriching" for India - something that must be gracefully accepted by the Indians loyally bootlicking the foreign marauder and rapist.

The reason - is stated clearly many times - the British hatred for the "pagan" Hindu temples, their "erotic" reliefs, Hindu-architecture as decadent compared to Islamic "purity" of form, and their deliberate Christian fundamentalism sourced suppression of Hindu temple reliefs and sculptures [they plastered over many] - in which they had to deny the Hindu architecture any place in the public imagination. This was how they sought to erase the Khajuraho and Chola temples from public appreciation space - nationally and more importantly globally.

People who fail to see the British imperialist construction of the image of "Taj" as authetic representation of India are serving British imperialist purposes - long after their formal rule is over.

[ramana]

I don't about Romano-Byzantine or Persian-Buddhist curved structures but the true dome was unknown in pre-Islamic architecture.

It may be that admiration of the Taj is an example of a British social engineering. Aesthetic neglect of Hindu temples is probably because most of them are squat, ponderous and ungainly. Uncomely, much like the pagoda further east.

[ramana]

^^^^
There are simply thousands upon thousands of Hindu temples that are outstandingly beautiful and recognised as such universally. One of my favourites is the Sun Temple in Konarak (well worth a visit):

Sun Temple, Konarak
Majestic in conception, this temple is indeed one of the sublimest monuments of India, notable as much for its imposing dimensions and faultless proportions as for the harmonious integration of architectural grandeur with plastic elegance.

The point is there is not much use for any self-appointed ayatollahs and their fatwas who seek to examine our likes and dislikes for influences of cultural imperialism / impurities. In my experience what these paranoid worthies lack in common sense, they more than make up for in rancour, bad taste and an impoverished sense of humour. See it, like it, take a photo, end of story. Read it, like it, cherish it, end of story (even if the author was a long-dead Englishman / Englishwoman).

[ramana]

Sanjaykumar ji,
Why is the shape generated by a smooth curve so much more "preferable" and "less decadent" or "less ungainly" than their "squat", cuboid, or pyramidal structures? According to British justification as to why the "Taj" should be loved is because it is much more "pure", "the purity of geometric form" minus the voluptuous aspect of pagan religions.

Curves are more associated with a full-fledged adult female body. Hemispheres or globes connect more to the erogenous zones of the female form than the more basic geometric forms like cuboids or pyramids - in the public imagination.

It could also be an inversion - the more the female form is seen as source of evil, the strayer from the "true" path - the stricter the injunctions on the public and private behaviour of the female, the greater seems to be the obsession and surfacing of the repressed desires.

Note that the greatest influenza bout of Taj-appreciation coincided with and came from the intensification of Raj holier-than-thou proselytization during the second half of 19th century, and the most extensive period of Victorian prudery.

[ramana]

+1
http://www.jainuniversity.org/art-galle ... &pageno=10

[ramana]

Thomas Walker Arnold and the Re-Evaluation of Islam, 1864-1930 : Katherine Watt : Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 2002), pp. 1-98.

Similar ideas of Western superiority underlay general European disapprobation of nearly all oriental art and architecture, with the result that the artistic achievements of Islam remained a largely undeveloped field of European scholarship. Epigraphical research, which dated from the eighteenth century, acquired greater popularity from the publication of Stanley Lane Poole's pioneering catalogue of Islamic coins in the British Museum, published between 1875 and 1890o, and Islamic architecture attracted increasing interest from the 1870s onwards, funded by large-scale government exploration missions, but it was not until the turn of the century that Muslim art became a dynamic field of research."9 This chapter will discuss the factors contributing to new intellectual interest in Islamic artistic activity and Arnold's personal contribution to the expansion of the field.

The development of oriental themes by various European artistic movements provided the basis for a reappraisal of oriental art itself. The early nineteenth-century Romantics turned to the East to fulfill their emotional ideals and spiritual quests, producing visually arresting images of Arabian scenes in particular, and Islamic influences provided inspiration for the Art Nouveau and Arts and Crafts movement at the end of the century, acquiring commercial appeal in Libertys of London, Samuel Bing of Paris and Tiffany's of New York.90 Artistic and commercial receptivity, together with museum acquisitions of Islamic art works and artefacts, made Islamic art and design available at several different levels. In Britain, for example, the London museums housed various oriental collections, Liberty's Oriental Bazaar popularized Islamic-inspired objects and designs, and the 1885 Persian and Arabian art exhibition at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, established leader of artistic taste, effectively sanctioned the vogue for all things oriental.91

The roots of academic reassessment were two-fold, in both general Islamic scholarship and art historical studies. Kulturgeschichte generated interest in Islamic art and architecture as cultural products, greater sympathy for Islam enhanced the possibilities of artistic reappraisal, and as historical scholarship looked beyond textual sources for evidence, artistic analysis and archaeology became seen as valuable tools for documenting the past (see chapter I). Ernst Herzfeld, an historian of the Middle East, was the first orientalist scholar to systematically combine historical research methods with stylistic analysis.92 Artistic appreciation of Islamic motifs and designs led several art history scholars to reevaluate Islamic art and architecture on its own terms, by rejecting Western artistic conceptions as judgmental criteria and emphasizing historical factors affecting artistic developments. The former approach originated with Ernest Binfield Havell, whose attempt to discard 'the full equipment of European academic prejudices' in order to fully appreciate the achievements of Indian art contrasted sharply with prevailing contempt. Havell turned orthodox ideas on their head by asserting that Indian art had become stale only when 'the unimaginative Anglo-Saxon succeeded the imaginative Mogul in the sovereignty of India'.93 The latter development owed its professional acceptability to the work of Max van Berchem and Joseph von Karabacek, both pioneers in emphasizing art and archaeology's wider historical context.94 With such strong German academic interest in Islamic culture and art, Berlin became the centre of this new scholarly appraisal.95

British intellectual interest in Islamic art owed a particular debt to E. G. Browne's work in directing academic and political attention towards Persia and its history. His influential accounts presented a distinctive vision of Persian race and religion and resurrected art as evidence of spiritual creativity, and between 19o8 and 191o he campaigned in favour of a foreign policy to protect Persia's national integrity.9" Persia's prominence in the wider contemporary arena amplified art historical awareness, but political concerns probably influenced academic developments more directly in the 1920s, when Britain was anxious to maintain friendly relations with Reza Shah Pahlavi's constitutional government. For example, the Royal Academy's 1931 Exhibition of Persian Art both responded to and stimu- lated intellectual re-appraisals, but it was also an exercise in political propaganda to promote Anglo-Persian links.


Academic reassessment created the notion of a distinctively Islamic artistic tradition which united Muslim artistic schools and practitioners across historical and geographical boundaries. A number of factors were probably at work in this replacement of earl-ier regional and ethnic frameworks of analysis.97 Islamic
scholars retained their pan-Islamic perspective when branching out into the art history field, and conversely, art history specialists seeking to place Muslim arts in a wider context were willing to consider religious factors. The development of pan-Islamism may also have encouraged European researchers to focus on Islam as the chief influence on its followers' history. The concept of a peculiarly Islamic tradition is now a subject for criticism, partly because it encouraged research on the 'golden age' of Islamic culture at the expense of the developments after c.15oo, partly because it focused on Muslim iconoclasm.98 Considered within the Saidian paradigm, the subordination of geographical and historical differences to the unifying feature 'Islamic' merely reflected Western desires to essentialize 'the Orient'.99 Yet the notion of 'Islamic' art and architecture was at the time liberating, as it released artistic achievements from restrictive regional analyses, in which they were frequently considered evidence of decline. Furthermore, it paralleled non-European intellectual developments which emphasized religious and supra-national identities. New Indian swadeshi art was ideologically underpinned by a predominantly Hindu nationalist ideal and a sense of pan-Asian unity, while pan-Islamic ideas asserted a broader political and religious vision.'00

Arnold was key figure to promote "sympathetic" reappraisal of "islamic art" primarily based on his supposed study of Indian sourced Islamic art during his extensive stay at Aligarh. He was a close associate of the "Aligarh circle" around Sayeed Ahmed, Shibli, Iqbal etc.

Arnold continued to support Muslim self-identification in primarily religious terms. He explicitly argued at Aligarh that Muslims formed a single nation, despite internal differences, and should pursue 'a high national ideal'.403 Furthermore, he believed that only a sectarian institutional framework could protect Muslim nationality against becoming 'a Hindu sect'.404

[ramana]

Architecture and the Representation of Empire: India, 1860-1910 Thomas R. Metcalf: Representations, No. 6 (Spring, 1984), pp. 37-65

British study of India's architecture at once reflected this colonial sociology and reinforced its hold. The "architecture indigenous to the soil" as Fergusson called it,that is,buildings erected in states with Hindu rulers,was labeled "Hindu," while the buildings of the Muslim dynasties that ruled between 1200 and 1800 A.D. were classed together as "Saracenic,"a term for Islam derived from the European encounter with the Arabs of the early conquests. All scholars,and especially Fergusson whose work was devoted to its elaboration, recognized that India's architecture comprised a number of different styles corresponding to various "ethnological" and political divisions among its people; Fergusson himself counted thirteen distinct "Saracenic" styles. Yet it was accepted as a matter of course that "the division of the whole of India into two great classes-Hindoo and Saracenic- was undoubtedly happy and true." The insistence on the centrality of a religious identity which took shape in fixed architectural styles, defined an India that was in effect an "Orientalist" construct: a timeless land of tradition- bound peoples for whom religion alone had meaning.'0

For the most part the British disdained the so-called "Hindu" style. Lord Napier, amateur student o architecture and Governor of Madras, in a speech in 1870 acknowledged that Hindu building "is imposing; it is even poetical... ; yet, regarded both from a scientific and an aesthetic point of view, it is manifestly defective." The ruling feature of this style, he argued, was "the horizontal line: the wall or the column supports a beam, the beam supports a flatroof. When the building is lofty, the fabric ascends by successive horizontal stages,one succeeding another in diminishing proportions to the apex." Though such a structure might rise with a "certain measure of continuity and elegance," with its method of construction "ingeniously concealed" by decoration, still the inherent "mechanical deficiencies" of the style could always be discerned.


Hence, Napier concluded, the Hindu style was "unavailable, under the present Government, for the purposes of the State,and ill-adapted for the common and public use of the collective people." It was alone suited to domestic building, where its principles of shade and seclusion fitted it ideally to social and climatic needs alike."

The arch and dome, the principal features of the "Saracenic" style, were by contrast, in Napier's view, the "most beautiful, the most scientific, and the most economical" ways of covering large spaces. Saracenic forms were in consequence, he argued, as suitable for modern buildings-railway stations, theatres, galleries, and lecture halls-as for the traditional employment in mosques and tombs; and he even urged the Government of India to adopt this as its official architectural style(Fig. 1).12 What made the Saracenic as a style so much more appealing? Part of the answer no doubt lies in its engineering, which managed stresses so as to avoid the "vast application of material in its most weighty and expensive form" that the horizontal style demanded. But most important surely was the association of the arch and dome with early Christendom,with the Roman and Byzantine empires, and with Renaissance notions of ideal beauty.Moreover,as the style associated with the Indian empire the British had themselves recently dispossessed, that of the Mughals, its use would enhance their own sense of power and majesty. Of the indigenous styles the Islamic was, simply, the most suited for the representation of empire.

Lord Napier himself inaugurated the new era by employing R.F Chisholm (1839 -1915), the Government Architect to design a building in the "Mussulman style" for the Madras Board of Revenue(Fig.2). With this design, Napier proudly proclaimed, Chisholm"has paid the first tribute to the genius of the past; he has set the first example of a revival in native art, which, I hope, will not remain unappreciated and unfruitful. Chisholm too saw his role as that of advocate for a new archiecture.He told the Madras UniversitySenate in 1869:

We have arrived at a most important period in the history of architecture in this country, and it will be decided in the course of the next five or ten years whether we are to have a style suited to the requirements of this country, or whether we are to be the mere copyists of every bubble which breaks on the surface of European art,and import our architecture, with our beer and our hats, by every mail-steamer which leaves the shores of England.'

Regarding why the dome is so "lovely" :

use of Byzantine styles in India especially for those types of buildings, such as Christian churches,where Europeans would feel uncomfortable in Saracenic surroundings. The two styles, he wrote,"have ever retained a certain family likeness, and the common possession of the dome constitutes a capital point of union." Besides, as the "most venerable" of Christian styles, Byzantine could never be "repugnant" in an ecclesiastical structure.15

And why onlee the Taj qualified to be appreciated:

at home there was always grumbling at the Indian Government's commitment to the strange and unfamiliar Indo-Saracenic. The Builder, though upset at Chisholm's unfair treatment in the Bombay municipal competition, never the less found it difficult to share his-and Fergusson's-enthusiasms. The editors wrote in a leading article:

You may learn to like anything if you try hard enough. Fergusson made Indian architecture his specialty, and managed to work himself up into an enthusiasm (not always communicated to his readers) even over things that are like the architecture of nightmare, without form, proportion, or logic.

Of Indian buildings only the Taj Mahal was "marked by a purity of line and balance of proportion which may really be called quite Greek.

[ramana]

Aesthetic neglect of Hindu temples is probably because most of them are squat, ponderous and ungainly. Uncomely, much like the pagoda further east.

I have to vehemently, but respectfully, disagree. One has to but to see the magnificence of gopurams of south Indian temples to appreciate the Indian temple architecture.

By the way, the only surviving original wonder of the world - the pyramids - have similar shape to any numbers of "gAli gOpuram"s one would find in S. India.

The shapes are dictated by the the shapes seen in nature by the respective civilizations, I suppose. In Indian subcontinent, one would see a lot of mountains which look triangular from afar (and also 2D simplices - the simplest polygon with area) but when one goes close one can would perceive the intricate interplay between crags, boulders, and flora. In deserts one would see sand dunes which are dome shaped. Moreover as one goes closer no more details come into view.

A direct question to sanjaykumar ji: What is your take on the architectural differences between Notre Dame and Sacré Cœur? I have some more thoughts but later.

[ramana]

No curves here

Old St. Pauls



The curved domes were imported by Wren from Arabia after the draw (or even an early Vietnam for UK) that was crusades recognizing that they were beaten and thus adopting the art of their superiors?

[sanjaykumar]

Notre Dame is positively repulsive! Except perhaps the east side view. It typifies all that was wrong with the Gothic idiom .. Worse examples are scaterred all over Europe. Sacre coeur is a monstrosity and that is putting it charitably-the proportions are all wrong and it looks like a rococo copy of an imagined oriental palace.

[JE Menon]

>>>Aesthetic neglect of Hindu temples is probably because most of them are squat, ponderous and ungainly. Uncomely, much like the pagoda further east.

I can't believe you actually wrote that boss!!!

[Philip]

Pl. watch the ongoing BBC series of the "Art of Spain".It clearly describes the Christian Sapnish initially being unable to comprehend the beauty of Moorish architecture and art,especially at the Alhambra,etc., being the pinnacle of this fabulous jewel of world architecture. It was the failure to properly comprehend the philosophy behind the styles of architecture around the colonies that saw the flawed analyses and lack of appreciation of Indian/Hindu architecture.Guruswamy in a tribute to Swami Vivekananda a couple of days ago in the Ind.Exp.,writes how the westerners at the Chicago world religious conclave were stunned by his words and one prominent Christian said,or words to that effect,"we call them heathen and are trying to convert them? They should send us their spiritual leaders instead!"

It does take time to realise one's mistakes and happily now,Indian art,architecture and culture is getting its true recognition.The Taj however is the pinnacle of Mughal architecture.Like the famous Roman emperor Augustus,who said he found Rome a city of brick and stone,but left it one of marble,so did Shah Jahan,who went a step further and took Akbar's red standstone and marble inlay work into a glut of white marble architecture.The fore-runner of the Taj was Humayan's tomb,one can see a clear progression of idea here and the white marble of Rajput palaces and shrines like those at Dilwara,Ranakpur,etc.,provided Shah Jahan the craftsmen who translated his dream into reality.The water gardens are pure Persian and the Taj in fact is a representation of paradise.The four canals representing the four streams at the Garden of Eden (E-Din).In fact this view of the Taj as being far more than just a pretty tomb for his Mumtaz is gradually gaining ground amongst scholars.

The arch was actually known to the ancient Egyptians,who used it for more mundane structures like granaries,etc.For the great temples and pyramids,they used trabeated styles more suited to their cosmic interpretations.The dome as the "canopy of heaven" was a later Roman and Byzantine invention,the Pantheon being the most perfect of them all-a truly stunning interpretation of the cosmos.Domes and vaulting was also used as a technique to enclose columnless large spaces.The Indian stupa's "origin,history and meaning" has best been explained by archaeo-historian John Irwin ,who visited India about 30+ years ago (whom I had the great privilige of meeting) .The dome of the stupa represents the "cosmic egg" floating on the waters and transfixed by the axial spear at its centre.In Sri Lankan dagobas (stupas) the "yupa pillar" is made of stone,whereas in most Indian stupas they were made of wood.The yupa pillars in the stupa had square bases (representing the earth),octagonal centres (the way) and circular (the cosmos) ends,which sometimes protruded from the stupas into an umbrella.

Excerpt from the "Kurama Purana"

At the end of the last Aeon when the three worlds were in darkness, there was nothing but a solitary sea, no gods and nothing divine, no seers. In that undisturbed emptiness slept the god Vishnu the Supreme, lying on the back of a great serpent. He was vast like a dark cloud, the soul of Yoga that dwells in the hearts of yogins.

Once during his sleep there arose in play from his navel a pure lotus, wondrous and divine, core of the three worlds. Spreading out a hundred leagues, bright as the morning sun, it had a heavenly fragrance, and was crowned with an auspicious calyx and stamen.

The lord Brahmā approached the place where Vishnu had long been laying. The Eternal-Souled Brahmā brought Vishnu upright with a gesture of his hand, even as he became mesmerized by the great god’s display. He spoke these sweet words: “Tell me, who are you, lying hidden in darkness in this dreadful, desolate sea?”

Vishnu smiled and answered, his voice like thunder. “Ah! Ah! Know me to be the great god Vishnu, creator and destroyer of the worlds, lord of yoga, the supreme person. See entire worlds within me, the continents with their mountains, the oceans and the seven seas, and also yourself, grandfather of worlds.”

Vishnu asked, though he already knew, “And who are you?” Laughing, the lord Brahmā, keeper of the Vedas, with lotus eyes, replied “I am the creator and ordainer, the self-existent ancestor; in me is everything established; I am Brahmā who faces all directions.

Hearing this, Vishnu, whose power is his truth, took his leave and entered into the body of Brahmā by yoga. Seeing all three worlds with gods, demons and men in the belly of the god, he was astonished.

And Brahmā laughed, and entered into Vishnu in turn. He saw these worlds in the womb, and moving about inside the great god, he saw no end or limit. At last he traveled out through Vishnu’s navel, and was born from a golden egg, the four faced Brahmā who had entered therein by the power of his yoga. He displayed himself on the great lotus. Lord Brahmā, self-existent, Grandfather, womb of creation, lustrous as the insides of a flower, shone there radiantly, resting on the lotus. (1)

here are a few sites for further reading.

http://www.reliancenetconnect.co.in/sea ... =0&start=0

Stupa
the country or on the spot where the stupa was built. J. Irwin goes further. He tries
to show that the axial pillar was called yupa (Skt) or Inda-khlla (Pali), which for ...
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/ ... /8691/2598

Download this PDF file
Some authors, such as John Irwin,1 Ananda Coomaras- wamy,2 and, to ... seen a
largely pre-Buddhist, Vedic meaning in the stupa's sym- bolism. ... The Origins of
the Stupa ... (British Association for the History of Religion), Oxford, April. 1982 ...
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/ ... /8633/2540

News Letter - Vol. II No. 1-4 1999, On the life and works of John Irwin
On his father's retirement, John Irwin came to England as a very young child, and
... a love of reading, and of history, which is evident throughout his later work. .... a
study of the origin and meaning of the Buddhist stupa, which he was due to ...
http://ignca.nic.in/nl_01302.htm

The Sacred Anthill and the Cult of the Primordial Mound Author(s ...
Source: History of Religions, Vol. 21, No. ... John C. Irwin THE SACRED ANTHILL
. AND THE ... When we look for meaning in anthill rites, the first clue comes ...
http://www.parrikar.com/blog/wp-content ... nthill.pdf

PS:Early archaeo evidence of this can be found from the fact that the stupas at their bases were surrounded by a wide blue tile band signifying water.

[eklavya]

The Taj Mahal is plainly superior to some of the greatest domed churches and cathedrals in Europe, whether it is the Duomo in Florence, St. Paul's in London, or St Peter's in Rome.

Duomo, Florence

St. Paul's, London

St. Peter's, Rome

But all four are simply marvellous buildings.

[eklavya]

The finest fort I have seen in India (caveat: haven't seen Chittor as yet) is actually the Jaisalmer Fort. Delhi's Lal Qila is grand, imposing, and suitably imperial, but for sheer beauty, especially once you step inside it, it doesn't come close to Jaisalmer Fort.

http://lexphoto.co.uk/albums/india/slid ... unset.html

[sanjaykumar]

Never did make it out to Jaisalmer, not for want of trying. Even minor structures in Rajasthan can be exquiste.

[ArmenT]

The curved domes were imported by Wren from Arabia after the draw (or even an early Vietnam for UK) that was crusades recognizing that they were beaten and thus adopting the art of their superiors?

Actually, there were some buildings with domes in Europe already. The Greeks and later, the Romans, had built quite a few public buildings with domes e.g. the Pantheon (which is still the biggest unreinforced concrete dome in the world, almost 2000 years later!) During the dark ages, a lot of the engineering knowledge was lost in Europe (including the knowledge of making concrete, which was discovered by the Romans). During the Reniessance period, the Italians started to rediscover some of the techniques that were lost from the Roman period. The St. Peter's Basilica dome was essentially cloned from the Pantheon's dome design and uses the same building techniques that the Pantheon did (saw a TV show on this -- the architect of St. Peter's had studied the Pantheon very closely and even rediscovered the formula for concrete that the Romans used, as well as the building techniques to construct the dome). During Wren's time, he was accused of making St. Paul's look like St. Peter's Basilica and his critics claimed that the building was too catholic looking and un-English!

Speaking of domed buildings, the Sanchi Stupa in India is also a dome and is older than the Pantheon and all the arab mosques .

[Murugan]

I am ofnthe opinion that othering of Bharat into India is done by our own sickulaars

Over four decades i have seen victory tower of chittorgarh, sun temple of konark and sanchi stups being systematically replaced by kutub minar, taj mahal and humayun tomb as representation of idea of india.

One can see this obvious change referin old hotel brochures, archaeological brochures, I&B promotions to their new flyers, websites and advertisements.

[Murugan]

It is not Dome but Tomb that attracts hitherto rich western tourists, all over the world, especially to rich tombs of Egypt and Bharat, IMHO.

Raiding tombs is another hobby!

Pyramids and and Taj Mahal were systematically looted. Gold, precious stones etc were just carted away by honest colonizers! One such stone still a national treasure for Queen of England!

[jamwal]

PAKISTAN AND THE MALAISE
B.R.Ambedkar on Islam
The Hindu-Muslim problem has two aspects to it. In its first aspect, the problem that presents itself is the problem of two separate communities facing each other and seeking adjustment of their respective right and privileges. In its other aspect, the problem is the problem of the reflex influences which this separation and conflict produces upon each of them. In the course of the foregoing discussion we have looked at the project of Pakistan in relation to the first of the aspects of the Hindu-Muslim problem. We have not examined the project of Pakistan in relation to the second aspect of that problem. Yet, such an examination is necessary because that aspect of the Hindu-Muslim problem is not unimportant. It is a very superficial if not an incomplete view to stop with the problem of the adjustment of their claims. It cannot be overlooked that their lot is cast together: as such they have to participate in a course of common activity whether they like it or not. And if in this common activity they face each other as two combatants do, then their actions and reactions are worth study, for they affect both and produce a state of affairs from which, if it is a diseased state, the question of escape must be faced. A study of the situation shows that the actions and reactions have produced a malaise which exhibits itself in three ways:
(l) Social Stagnation,
(2) Communal Aggression, and
(3) National Frustration of Political Destiny.
This malaise is a grave one. Will Pakistan he a remedy for the malaise? Or will it aggravate the malaise? The following chapters are devoted to the consideration of these questions.

CHAPTER X

SOCIAL STAGNATION


I
[Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is]

The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been well known. The publication of Mother India by Miss Mayo gave these evils the widest publicity. But while Mother India served the purpose of exposing the evils and calling their authors at the bar of the world to answer for their sins, it created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a progressive people. That such an impression should prevail, is surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters.

One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims.

Take child-marriage. The Secretary of the Anti-Child-marriage Committee, constituted by the All-India Women's Conference, published a bulletin which gives the extent of the evil of child-marriage in the different communities in the country. The figures, which were taken from the Census Report of 1931, are as follows :—

[ramana]

Up.

[chaanakya]

Well We have just discovered remains of another Ancient University setup probably bu Guptas in , guess where, Nalanda , Bihar.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 783013.cms