India's Monumental Glory

[Guest guest]

Monumental Glory

 

One legacy of India's rich and varied history is the numerous forts

and palaces that dot the country's landscape. Bindu Manchanda looks at

them in detail in Forts and Palaces of India: Sentinels of History

 

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060611/spectrum/lead1.jpg

The current Wodeyar Maharaja of Mysore performing pooja on Vijaydashmi day

click link for photos

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060611/spectrum/main1.htm

 

IN popular imagination, forts and palaces are redolent of mystique,

romance, pleasure and intrigue; but above all—melding beauty and grace

with strength and substance — these proud sentinels are living

reminders of India's breathtakingly rich civilisation and culture.

 

The earliest reference to forts and palaces in India can be found in

the Vedas. Vedic hymns mention pur several times, which could refer to

a rampart or a fort or a stronghold. The Vedic deity Indra is

specially referred to as Purandara or `destroyer of forts'; Historians

aver that the pur that the Vedas refer to were in fact the defensive

structures built by the inhabitants of the Harappa or the Indus Valley

Civilisation, and Indra's `rending forts as age consumes a garment' is

a reference to the invading Aryan hordes who, in all likelihood,

overran the remnants of the Harappan civilisation.

 

Other notable references to forts in ancient texts include those in

the Arthashastra, the 4th-century classic on statecraft attributed to

Kautilya; the Vastushastra, the ancient manuals on town planning and

architecture; and in the Mayamata, the South Indian treatise on

architecture written sometime between the 9th and the 12th century.

 

The earliest surviving forts in India date back to the 8th century AD.

A notable example is the fort at Chittorgarh in Rajasthan, which was

built in AD 728. Most of India's surviving forts, however, were built

from the 12th century onwards, like the Jaisalmer Fort in Rajasthan

and the Golconda Fort near Hyderabad. While hardly any forts and

palaces built before the 12th century remain standing there is ample

evidence that they existed from accounts left by travellers

archaeological finds, ancient cave paintings, as well as mention in

ancient texts and treatises on architecture and statecraft.

 

Archaeological evidence that a fairly sophisticated civilisation

flourished at the time is available in the form of remains of pottery

and artefacts in sites throughout this region.

 

Megasthanes, the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya

in the 4th century BC described the king's palace at Pataliputra as

set amidst gardens, with a series of open halls supported by wooden

columns decorated in gold and silver. The Palace, according to him,

surpassed the grandeur of the Achaemenid palaces of Sousa and Ecbatana

in Persia.

 

The veracity of Megasthanes's account has been bolstered by recent

excavations that have revealed some remains of the Mauryan Palace in

Patna, the present day city at the site of Pataliputra.

 

The cave temples of western Deccan, excavated and sculpted between 100

BC and 170 AD; the frescoes of Ajanta, the description of Emperor

Harshavardhan's Raj Bhavan or royal palace in the 7th century by

Banbhatta in Kadambri and Harshacharita — all bear testimony to the

fact that ancient India had many palaces and forts that were the envy

of foreign travellers.

 

But why have none of them survived? Are the ravages of time the only

explanation?

 

The reason could also lie in the Hindu belief that temples as the

abode of gods, were sacrosanct and had to be preserved at all costs,

while palaces and homes, however beautiful, had a temporal and

utilitarian role, and were therefore expendable. Another reason that

there are no remains of palaces and forts from the ancient times could

be the predominant use of wood as the basic material of construction,

which made them susceptible to decay and destruction. Moreover very

often, rulers felt the need to build their own palaces, their own

forts and even their own new capital, rather than maintain and restore

those of their predecessors.

 

Indian rulers, whether Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist, closely followed the

rules and conventions laid out in their respective texts, both

religious and secular, in all aspects of their life . There has always

existed in India a strong link between cosmology, astrology and

architecture. Therefore places of worship, forts, palaces and even

entire cities were planned, built and developed based on certain rules

and principles.

 

Excerpted from Forts and Palaces of India: Sentinels of History by

Bindu Manchanda. Lustre/Roli Books. Pages 192. Rs 695.

Excerpted from Forts and Palaces of India: Sentinels of History by

Bindu Manchanda. Lustre/Roli Books. Pages 192. Rs 695.

 

According to Vastushastra, the royal city should be planned according

to mandalas — sacred diagrams, which represent the cosmos in a

miniature form.

 

According to Tillotson, possibly the single most important element

introduced into late-Hindu secular architecture by the Indo-Islamic

architectural tradition is the appearance of the true arch. It is only

after the Muslim conquests that the traditional Hindu trabeate system,

which consisted of horizontal beams or lintels, was slowly replaced by

the true arch. The cusped arch however was used in Hindu architecture

and appears in ancient temples such as the 8th century temple of

Martand near Anantnag and the 10th century temple of Pandrethan, both

in Kashmir. It is also found in the temple architecture in Khajuraho.

However, it began to be used extensively only from the 18th century

onwards, after its use was perfected by the Mughals, especially during

the reign of Shah Jahan (r.1627-58).

 

The medieval palaces were usually fortified, contained, protected and

heavily secured, probably due to the relentless strife and invasions

from the early-12th century onwards. It is only much later, in the

19th century, after signing of peace treaties between the native

states of India and the British, that another distinct palace

architectural style, popularly known as the Indo-Saracenic style, emerged.

 

The Indo-Saracenic style represents a fusion of Indo-Islamic and

European architectural ideas. The treaties signed with the British

ensured peace and left the Indian maharajas with caches of money that

had earlier been spent on maintaining huge armies and waging wars. New

palaces, modelled on the European style, started replacing the older

ones and reflected the newly acquired tastes of the maharajas.

 

The durbar halls were replaced by magnificent hallrooms, mural

paintings were discarded for glittering chandeliers and heavily

embroidered fabrics on low-style seating was replaced by French furniture.

 

The British architect Samuel Swinton Jacob is credited with this

revival. Palaces designed by him make abundant use of traditional

features such as jalis (ornamented pierced stone-screen), jharokas

(decorative projecting balcony), chattris (roof-top pavilion with dome

or vault; funerary monument), cusped arches and bangle roofs. This

`neo-Rajput' style took a firm hold on the Indian maharaja's

imagination and nearly all palaces built in this period were executed

in this style.

 

The result, despite being slightly idiosyncratic, was not without

charm. The happy intermingling of western style arcades and towers

with jharokas and jalis resulted in some impressive palaces, like the

Baroda Palace, which was designed by Charles Mant.

 

In the 20th century came a new sensibility, the thoroughly modern

art-deco style that can be seen in the palaces at Indore, and at Morvi

in Gujarat that was designed by Eckart Muthesius.

 

Independence brought with it an end to palace building but not without

a final triumph.

 

Work on the Umaid Bhawan palace in Jodhpur built on the design by

Lanchester and Lodge of London, started in 1929 and the palace was

ready only by 1944, equalling if not exceeding in magnificence the

Viceroy's palace in New Delhi.

 

After the merger of the princely states with the Union of India in

1947 and with the abolition of the privy purses — annual remittances

guaranteed by law, by the government of India to the princes whose

states were absorbed into the Indian Union—in 1970, the upkeep of the

palaces became prohibitively expensive and suffered as a result.

 

In the ensuing period many were abandoned or taken over by the

government, while some continued to remain in private hands and serve

as private residences of the erstwhile royals.

 

A lot of them have been converted into heritage hotels (with some

sections being used as private residences). One of the best examples

of a royal residence cum luxury hotel is the Umaid Bhawan Palace in

Jodhpur. A large part of the Jai Niwas in Gwalior continues to be

occupied by the royal family of Scindias, while the Gaekwads retain

Lakshmi Vilas in Baroda and the Wodeyars of Mysore still own a large

section of the Mysore city palace.

 

Many palaces have been converted into museums under private or

government management. Old palaces are also being used as

administrative offices in many cities and towns.

 

In the 19th century, many forts had ugly barracks erected within their

compounds by the British to house soldiers and many of them are still

occupied by the Indian army. The Red Fort in Delhi and the Kangla Fort

in Assam have only recently been freed of the army's presence and are

now being restored.

 

The future of Indian forts and palaces seems to be brighter than what

it was ten years ago. Both the government and the private owners are

keenly aware of the need to maintain these priceless legacies from

India's past, and also all their potential as revenue-generating

properties.

 

Organisations like INTACH (The Indian National Trust of Art and

Cultural Heritage), the A.S.I. (Archaeological Survey of India) and

other heritage societies, private trusts and individuals are actively

involved in conservation efforts.

 

The forts and palaces of India are timeless and it is incumbent upon

the present generation to preserve them for posterity.