Mughal style? Did the Mughals have any appreciation of art? What a wrong name! :-(

A painting from a Vishnu Dasavtar Series- a very common subject matter among Indian painters depicting the 10 incarnations of Vishnu- such as the Matsya Avtar, Varaha Avtar etc. This painting points to the rich exchange of ideas that was happening between Islamic and Hindu traditions at this point. The painting as has been correctly pointed out, is in the Mughal style but is of a Hindu mythological subject.

In fact the painting points to the fact that in every age, every culture depicts gods and goddesses in the cultural attire and context of that period. Look for example at the beard of Brahma! The beard is not unlike what we see on the Mughal and Rajput kings of the age.

MR.Mohan P.- the RBSI exists to dispel incorrect and misinformed notions such as yours. Under the Mughal empire were made some of the finest pieces of art to have ever been produced in the subcontinent. Some of the Mughal emperors were great patrons of art. A trip to any local museum would reveal hundreds of objects of art produced of influenced by the Mughal courts. Why, one doesnt even need to go to a museum- so many of the art forms which survive to this day in India have their roots in the Mughal courts- from Mughal enamelled 'jadau' jewellery to our Kalamkari prints which can be found in Fab India. We have dangerous maniplations of our history today-mostly to serve the agenda of communal politics. The least we can do as educated people, is to be critical of the incorrect versions and narratives of history we are fed with. Thus we need many more forums like the RBSI.

Well explained Kotharis of Rajgarh Antiques! It is indeed gratifying when members understand the purpose and intent of RBSI. We need to learn for ourselves once again and stop being spoon-fed communal and political rhetoric which unnecessarily distorts history and art.

Kotharis may be partially correct. But it is a loaded statement to speak of DANGEROUS MANIPULATION and COMMUNAL POLITICS in this context. It should have been sufficient merely to make your point and support it with anecdotes. I am not sure if RBSI has depicted here any material from Jaipur museum archives which was to be displayed in an Exhibition in Tamilnadu by FRANCOIS GAUTIER but which was banned by Tamilnadu govt bowing to the pressures of Muslims. The historical facts revealed by these archives have always been blacked out in the Govt sponsored text book version of history. The history we have been taught is incorrect and contorted. It has made me suspect even the versions relating to periods before and immediately independence. Because an ordinary man is unable to distinguish propaganda and history. Anyway thanks for showing your perspective.

Mohan P: You have said it!..."The history we have been taught is incorrect and contorted. It has made me suspect even the versions relating to periods before and immediately independence. Because an ordinary man is unable to distinguish propaganda and history." It is for this very reason that RBSI presents books and art which predates the periods you are referring to. But then... expecting to be spoon-fed 'absolute truth' in history is a flawed expectation from the beginning which is doomed towards certain disappointment. Such a thing does not exist. We can and should expect only 'interpretations of history'. Ideally as RBSI believes.. 'multiple interpretations' with the belief that truth remains somewhere in between. History is neither black nor white (pardon the cliche)...but exists only in the many shades of grey. For the record...let me me clarify that RBSI is probably one of the very few forums (or probably the only forum)...wherein all shades of someone as controversial as Aurangzeb are frequently discussed. You may recall that recently, we posted an article by Francois Gautier and the book by Saadiq Ali almost simultaneously. Two sides of this often-demonized historical character...presented with credible and cogent arguments.

Thank you!

This is the article by Francois Gautier: The truth about Aurangzeb By Francois Gautier http://on.fb.me/SseFPi ...Immediately followed by: A Vindication of Aurangzeb By Sadiq Ali of Kapurthala Published in Kapurthala - 1916 http://on.fb.me/U2kRwd How radically different can the two views be? This in my opinion is the honest approach to learn about history! ...One should finally decide for oneself.

Thanks RBSI. I shal take time to read the book oof Sadiq Ali. But my core issue was justification for calling the painting Mughal style.We should not use the name just because it started during Mughal period. There must be evidence to show that a Mogul king actively patronised it and contributed to it birth,evolution and prominence.

I agree with above point by Mohan P. While it is mainstream to call, nearly everything painted during the time Mughals were in Delhi -- as Mughal style, it may be quite misleading to put everything in one basket -- mainstream understanding of history in India, as we have explored before is fairly flawed. I would say that the Mughal style was only restricted to the painting made of Mughal themes and for Mughal kings, under the influence of local artists in India (Mughals did not/could not bring art and culture from their lands) -- the other styles of India, should not be lumped under Mughal just because Mughals occupied Delhi.

The much maligned Wiki always comes to the rescue when we need to get a quick overview: Mughal painting |Mongol| is a particular style of South Asian painting, generally confined to miniatures either as book illustrations or as single works to be kept in albums, which emerged from Mongol Persian miniature painting, with Indian Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist influences, and developed largely in the court of the Mughal Empire (Mongol 16th - 19th centuries), and later spread to other Indian courts, both Muslim and Hindu, and later Sikh. More at: http://bit.ly/SHkE4I

^^ I am not sure I will agree with the above characterization. Perhaps a different take would be "Mughal style painting was a offshoot of Indian schools of painting as they were adopted by the Mughal court for specific topic in Mughal framework" A subtle, but significant difference. :-)

To day Francoise Gautier has written a very goos post in his poage about Aurangzeb. It takes a Frenchman to say this with boldness and courage. Even if an Indian has that much courage he will be dubbed a communal. Enough is enough Don't try to whitewash blak deeds in Indian history. If only some prominent disown such gross human rights violations it will go along way in in promoting genuine communal harmony .https://www.facebook.com/francoisgautierofficial?fref=ts

Similar to Jhulelal