Middle East GardenTraditions: Unity and

DiversityMiddle East GardenTraditions: Unity and

DiversityMiddle East GardenTraditions: Unity and

DiversityMiddle East GardenTraditions: Unity and

Diversity

My Garden is Hindustan:The MughalPadshah’s Realization of a Political

Metaphor

Ebba Koch

IInnttrroodduuccttiioonnThe foremost characteristic of the Mughal garden is its emphasis onarchitecture and orderly planning which Babur (r. in India 1526-30)famously claims to have introduced into “unclean and disorderly” (bīs�afā wa bī-sīyāq) Hind or Hindustan—the names given by the Mughals tothe Indo-Gangetic plain (Fig. 1). Babur’s words have often beeninterpreted as a general critique of the Indian culture, but what hereferred to was then the product of a Muslim government, the Lodidynasty (1451-1526).1 Babur uses the terms “architectural modes andregularly ordered gardens” (tawr–i tarrāh�īhā va bāghchahā-yi siyāqdār) inconnection with his first garden at Agra, laid out in 1526 (Thackston1993, 3: 642-43), which he called a chahār bāgh.2 In its strictestinterpretation, the much-discussed term chāhar bāgh, or its abbreviatedform chārbāgh, designates a cross-axial four-part garden, chahārmeaning “four” and bāgh “garden.” Babur, however, applied the term inits widest sense, for architecturally planned gardens with intersectingraised paved walkways, platforms, and pools. The term chahār bāgh, forhim, also includes terraced gardens on mountain slopes and hisextravagant rock cut garden, the Bagh-i Nilufar at Dholpur on whichmore follows. Writers of the later sixteenth century point out that the“design of [intersecting] walkways” (tarh-bandī-yi khīyābān) was themost characteristic feature of his gardens, and a novelty in Hindustan.3

After Babur, the Mughals did not employ the term chahār bāghvery much. While in the Mughal context the term chahār bāgh seems to disappear, the form asserts itself: Babur’ssuccessors built the grandest and most consistently planned chahār bāghs in the entire history of garden architecture.4 Bythe time of Shah Jahan (r. 1628-58), we can identify three well-defined formal variants of the Mughal chahār bāgh (Fig. 2).First, the canonical cross axial chahār bāgh which had made a grand entry in the rigorously geometric tomb garden of

Fig. 1. Map of India with sites under discussion(Drawing R. A. Barraud and E. Koch).

.

...

.

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

160

Humayun (1562-71). Second, the terrace garden, a linear composition planned in steps along a longitudinal axis, famous arethe Shalimar gardens of Kashmir (1620 and 1634) and Lahore (1641-42). And third, the waterfront garden which I haveidentified as a configuration of a river front terrace upon which are placed the main symmetrically arranged buildings, anda chahār bāgh on the landward side. This garden type first appears as a residential garden, but the most famous example isthe funerary garden of the Taj Mahal (1632-48) (Koch 1997a rpt. 2001, 183-202). All three forms are not only characterizedby axial planning and a symmetrical arrangement of garden buildings, they are also furnished with an established set ofarchitectural features.5

Taking the cue from Babur, it has been plausibly suggested that the Mughals saw in these strictly planned gardensa means to demonstrate the new order of Mughal rule in Hindustan.6 Taking the line of investigation further, I have tried

Fig. 2. The three types of the Mughal chahār bāgh.Top: ccrroossss aaxxiiaall——tomb of Humayun, Delhi (1562-71). Bottom left: tteerrrraacceedd—Shalimar garden,Kashmir (1620 and 1634). Bottom right:wwaatteerrffrroonntt—Lal Mahal, Bari, Rajasthan (1637).(Drawing R. A. Barraud and E. Koch).Fig. 3. The Mughal emperor Jahangir (in an Indianpose and attire) and his wife Nur Jahan, Mughalschool, ca. 1620, Inv.-Nr. I. 4593 fol. 46, StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Islamische Kunst.(Photo by G. Niedermeiser).

ebba ko

ch

161

to show that the garden became a module inthe planning of cities and palaces (Koch 1997arpt. in Koch 2001, 183-202), and in the lastanalysis, under Shah Jahan, a politicalmetaphor of a golden age brought about bythe good government of the Great Mughal(Koch 1997b rpt. in Koch 2001, 203-28).

It appears, however, that in pastdiscussions Mughal formalism has beensomewhat overstressed and that theconnection between chahār bāgh and Mughalimperial order in India has been argued toonarrowly.

The geometrical aspects of theMughal garden have diverted our attentionfrom another approach where no regularsystem is forced upon nature but wherenature becomes the main protagonist. Herethe natural landscape is the determiningfactor, or a feature of nature becomes agarden element in itself. This form of dealingwith landscape begins with Babur’s rock cutBagh-i Nilufar at Dholpur which, with the bestwill in the world cannot be called regularlyplanned. It forms such an antithesis to thegeometric order of the three formal gardentypes that one finds it difficult to understandwhy Babur also calls it a chahār bāgh(Beveridge 1921/1970, 585, 606-07, 615, 634,639).

However, the Bagh-i Nilufar is notsuch an isolated phenomenon as it seems atfirst glance. On the contrary, it belongs to adistinct approach of the Mughals in dealingwith the nature of Hindustan, but typically—like the chahār bāgh—it serves their imageand has a political aspect. Nature is related torule and dynastic self representation. TheMughal padshah (by established conventionrendered as emperor)—and this seems to bealmost exclusively an imperial enterprise7—claims nature as his own by making apermanent imprint on it with artistic means,with architectural features, sculptures and

Fig. 4. The Bagh-i Nilufar at Dholpur, 1526/A.H. 933, plan (after Moynihan).4. Partial ground plan and elevation of palace at the conclusion of field work1986., Legend: A. Main platform. B. Terrace 1. C. Terrace 2. D. Central entrance. E.Charbagh (if completed). 1. Water channel. 2. Babur’s apartments. 3. Rock-cutsteps. 4. Lotus-bud pool. 5. Lotus-blossom pool. 6. Double water chute and fadingflower pool. 7. Rock-cut pavilion. 8. Walkway on platform edge. 9. Garden. 10.Paved court. 11. Watercourse diving area into two terraces. 12. Water chute androck-cut octagon pool which also feeds garden. 13. Timurid pavilion. 14.Distribution pool. 15. Aqueduct built on platform. 16. Aqueduct and well. 17.Hammam. Solid lines indicate rock-cut features. Shaded areas are existingconstruction from 1527 to 1529. Dotted lines represent stone and mortar remainsof demolished buildings. Modern village and vegetation are not indicated.Fig. 5. Stone cut lobed pool in the Bagh-i Nilufar. (Photo by Ebba Koch taken in2000).

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

162

inscriptions. I would like to take the argument further and suggest that the natural form, highlighted and ennobled by theemperor, becomes a garden element of his realm and, consequently, turns it into a garden. It testifies to the extent of theengagement of the Mughals with India that they express themselves here largely in Indian terms. They relate themselvesto such elements which have a special meaning in the Indian religious and cultural tradition. Thus, the claim on naturealigns itself with an ongoing Mughal project, from Babur to Shah Jahan, to become as rulers part of the culture of India.

This involvement with India has been discussed in length for Akbar, less so for Jahangir.8 But with regard to theartistic expression of such ideas, Jahangir went even further than Akbar. On a little known painting in Berlin, he hadhimself represented like an Indian deity or ruler. He appears with a large solar and lunar halo, scantily clad in a dhoti, theIndian loin cloth, seated in the lotus position, and served by a female consort which looks like his wife Nur Jahan under abaldachin held in the clouds by European putti. It is by all standards the most Indian (and eccentric!) depiction of a Muslimking one could possibly imagine (Fig. 3).9

It is also Jahangir who was, as we shall see, the keenest among the Mughal emperors to associate himself throughartistic transformation with the nature and landscape of Hindustan. There were various ways to effectuate this.

IImmpprriinnttiinngg ooff NNaattuurreeThe Rock Cut GardenThe Bagh-i Nilufar (Lotus garden), as Babur named it when he laid it out in 1526/A.H. 933,10 is situated on a hill to the northof Dholpur, a town south of Agra. Today the garden forms part of a village which is built over parts of it.11 Its mostoutstanding features are several lobed pools which are linked by a system of canals, all cut out of the rock.12 One pool hasfour channels, a quadripartite feature, which may have to do with why Babur called it a chahār bāgh (Fig. 4 and 5) (Koch1997a, 140, rpt. 2001, 184-86).

With the creation of the Bagh-i Nilufar, Babur clearly elaborated on an earlier project at Kabul about which weknow through Jahangir. When he, the great grandson of Babur, came to Kabul as emperor in 1607, he tells us about a dais(s�uffa) near a platform (takht) on the slope of the Takht-i Shah, a mountain south of Kabul where Babur used to sit anddrink wine. In one corner of the terrace a pool (hawż) was carved out of the stone, and on the wall inscribed the words:“The seat of the king [takht-i padshāh], the asylum of the world, Zahiru-d-din Muhammad Babur, son of cUmar ShaikhGurgan, may God perpetuate his kingdom, 914 (1508-09).”13 The inscription and the seat played with the name of themountain Takht-i Shāh, which means Royal Throne or Royal Seat, on which Babur literally put “one over,” a takht-i padshahan imperial throne or seat. Jahangir, to associate himself with his ancestor’s marking of the mountain, ordered to carve outanother platform (takht) next to it, and another pool, and had his own name engraved there together with that of Timur ofwhom the Mughals were so proud to descend. When Jahangir visited this place, he had the pools filled with wine and helddrinking parties with his courtiers, a time honored gesture of the Muslim prince claiming here on earth the future joys ofparadise.14

Jahangir continued to appropriate idyllic landscape spots with platforms and inscriptions. In October 1620, on hisway out of Kashmir over the Pir Panjal, he described a stone dais (suffa) which he had made not far from the villageBahramgala near a spring and a waterfall, over which he ordered an inscription to be placed with the date of his passage(Rogers 1909-14/1994, 2: 179; Thackston 1999, 349).

Babur had started the tradition of fashioning garden elements out of rocks at Kabul, and he relates here to adistinct regional tradition, reaching from the Buddha statues and caves at Bamiyan which he knew15 to the rock carvedtemples of India.

The Grotto and the Sacred SpringMughal grottoes appear in connection with a spring, and the idea of a rock cut garden also plays a role. The grotto isframed by an architectural façade and houses a sacred spring. At Mandu, the previous residence of the Malwa sultans

.

.

ebba ko

ch

163

which were vanquished by Akbar, ShahBudagh Khan, the new administrator of theMughal Empire, constructed in 1574-75/A.H.982 the Nilkanth, a plaisance on themountainside with a magnificent view of thevalley below. The architecture consists solelyof an open courtyard formed of three largepīshtāqs (īvāns in rectangular frames) set intothe mountain (Fig. 6 and 7). The pīshtāq of themain axis is framed by two domed rooms andleads to a grotto-like chamber, also with adome, in the interior where the waters of aspring—sacred to Shiva, the one with the bluethroat (Nilkanth)—fall into a pool from anupper reservoir.

Akbar did not miss the opportunity toput his own stamp on this architecturalizationof nature by his officer. When returning to thenorth from his Deccan campaign, in 1600-01/A.H. 1009, he left an inscriptioncommemorating his latest victory and hisstay:

His Majesty, the shadow ofGod, the king Akbar afterhaving conquered the Deccanand Khandes set out forHind[ustan] in the year 1009(1600-01).Composed by Nami.At dawn I saw an owl sittingon the pinnacle of ShirwanShah’s tomb.Plaintively it uttered thewarning, “Where is all thatglory and where all thatsplendor?”16

Akbar’s inscription accentuates theappropriated grotto with what a ruler ofPersianate culture was expected to express in front of sites of past glories, namely that his own achievements would be asephemeral as those of the great ones who ruled before him. With the motif of the owl decrying the departed glories on thetomb of the medieval Islamic rulers of the Shirwanshah dynasty in eastern Transcaucasia, the poet Nami refers indirectlyto the downfall of Mandu and Khandesh, brought about by Akbar (Koch 1993, rpt Koch 2001, 169, also 165, 167).

Fig. 6. The Nilkanth at Mandu 1574-75/A.H. 982, plan of main floor. (Drawing R.A. Barraud and E. Koch).Fig. 7. The courtyard of the Nilkanth at Mandu formed of three pishtaqs set intothe rock. (Photo by Ebba Koch taken in 1997).

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

164

The architectural framing of a grotto with a spring is taken up by Jahangir in his palace chashma-yi nūr (Spring ofLight), also known as Hafiz Jamal in the hills west of Ajmer. He was extremely fond of this place and visited it thirty-eighttimes during his stay of about three years at Ajmer where he had taken up residence to be close to the campaigns of hisson Khurram, the later Shah Jahan, against the rana of Mewar. The most remarkable feature of the otherwise largelydestroyed ensemble is a high masonry pishtaq put up between two hillsides below an impressive waterlift, built by RaoMaldeva of Marwar in 1535. Jahangir’s pishtaq provides access to a grotto in the mountainside from where the spring fills abasin at the foot of the pishtaq (Fig. 8). On top of the pishtaq an inscription states that in 1615/A.H. 1024 Jahangir raised hispalace at the bank of the spring and that he named it chashma-yi nūr (Spring of Light), in allusion to his title Nur al-Din(Light of the Faith) (Fig. 9):

1. The king of seven climes, of lofty fortune, whose praise cannot be contained in speech,2. The lustre of the house of king Akbar, emperor of the age, king Jahangir,3. When he visited this fountain through his bounty, water began to flow and dust turned into elixir,4. The Emperor gave it the name chashma-yi nūr (Fountain of Light) from which the water of immortalityacquires its relish,5. In the tenth year from the accession of that king, the holy champion, at the behest of wise counsel.6. On the bank of the chashma-yi nūr, this edifice adorned the world as was destined,7. Wisdom wrote the chronogram17 of its completion (thus: it is) “The palace of king Nur al-Din Jahangir.”8. It was written by cAbd Allah.18

The Mughals also associated themselves with the sites of sacred springs of Kashmir and built their gardens around them,famously Jahangir at Virnag where he constructed (or reconstructed) in 1609 the octagonal reservoir around the source ofthe river Jhelum (Bihat) which comes up in a deep pool (Fig. 10) (Rogers 1909-14/1994, 2: 173-74; cf. Petruccioli 1994, 252and 254).

Fig. 8. Chashma-yi Nūr near Ajmer, a high pishtaqset before a grotto in the mountainside, completed.(Photo by Ebba Koch taken in 1982).

Fig. 9. Inscription of Jahangir containing the date 1615/A.H. 1024 on top of thepishtaq of Chashma-yi Nūr near Ajmer. (Photo by Ebba Koch taken in 1982).

ebba ko

ch

165

The Appropriated TreeThe discussion so far has shown that theMughals’ desire to manipulate andappropriate nature to demonstrate imperialcontrol over it was particularly pronounced inJahangir. He was generally intrigued bynatural phenomena—to the extent that herecorded them in a scientific manner in themulti-faceted autobiographic history of hisreign, the Jahangirnama—and had themvisually represented by his painters.19 TheMughal padshah’s interest in the natural worldwas far more scientific than that of any of hiscounterparts in the Muslim world, and hecomes closer than any European ruler to SirFrancis Bacon’s (1561-1626) ideal of the princeas a learned observer and investigator ofnature.20 Jahangir, defying the narrowcategorization of twentieth and twenty-firstcentury area studies, shows himself assomeone who could be described as anintercultural Mannerist when he is concerned to wed art with nature. For instance, in 1611 he sponsors an artist from hisseal cutting department to make an object consisting of half a hazelnut shell into which four compartments were set withmicroscopic figural scenes carved in ivory, one of them showing Christ with followers under a tree (Rodgers 1909-14/1994,1: 200-01; Thackston 1999, 125)! Such exercises were a characteristic agenda of the arts of northern Europe of the sixteenthand early seventeenth centuries. Although I am aware of what has been criticized as “the obsessive concern to measure allthings Indian up against a European yardstick,”21 I have to note here once again that the Mughals had no problemsappropriating European art for their own purposes, and that similar things happened in Europe and Asia though theconnection is not always clear.22

Jahangir liked to leave his imperial imprint on nature with artistic means, and he thought here in larger termsthan anybody else. Besides having garden features cut out of rocks and the framing of sacred springs, he also had stonetablets with artistically rendered inscriptions put on outstanding trees and turned them into imperial furniture by placingsitting platforms around them. The latter, being seats of a ruler, had a throne connotation, and thus a significance beyondnormal seats. The inscriptions usually referred to his lineage and thus emphasized dynastic legitimacy. It appears almost asif Jahangir is mapping out with garden features an “imperial topography,” bringing to mind the sacred topography ofcertain regions of India where an accumulation of particular spots is visited by pilgrims. Examples include Kashmir(Petruccioli 1994), or the region of Braj around Mathura where Krishna spent his youth. Jahangir set up stone tablets withhis name and those of his ancestors on two plane trees in the Shah-ara garden at Kabul, and to intensify the relationship,he gave them names implying that they were serving him. One he called farah�-bakhsh (joy giver), the other sāya-bakhsh(shade giver) (Rogers 1909-14/1994, 1:107-08; Thackston 1999, 76-77).

In 1617 near Ujjain in central India, Jahangir had a platform made around a strangely shaped palm tree—the trunkof which had forked into two branches, and, as the imperial scientist he was, he had it measured and painted for inclusionin the Jahangirnama. It is worthwhile to quote the full passage which shows Jahangir’s scientific approach and thoroughnessin observing detail:

Fig. 10. Octagonal pool containing the source of the Jhelum at Virnag, 1609.(Photo by Ebba Koch taken in 1989).

.

At this halting-place a tamarind tree [dirakht-i khurmā, literally “date tree,” is not a tamarind but a palmtree] came to view, the form and habit of which were somewhat strange. The original tree had one trunk;when it had grown to 6 gaz, [one gaz is a Mughal measure of length which corresponds to about 32 inchesor 81.28 cm] it turned into two branches, one of which was 10 and the other 9 1/2 gaz. The distancebetween the two branches was 4 1/2 gaz. From the ground to the place where the branches and the leavescame to an end (?) [Thackston: “had come out”], there were on the side of the large branch 16 gaz, on theother branch 15 1/2 gaz. From the place where the branches and the green leaves began (?) to the top(trunk) of the tree were 2 1/2 gaz, the circumference was 2 1/2 gaz. I ordered them to make a chabūtara(platform) round it to the height of 3 gaz. As the trunk was very straight and well shaped, I told the artistto depict it in the illustrations of the Jahangirnama.23

And indeed, one of the illustrations of the Jahangirnama, an unfortunately badly damaged painting in the RazaLibrary at Rampur, shows Jahangir on his horse in a grove of palm trees watching the measuring of the forked tree in theforeground (Fig. 11) (Schmitz 2006, Pl. 7).

Soon after, when Jahangir proceeded from Ujjain to Mandu, another tree in the village of Shaikhupur caught hisattention. It was an enormous banyan tree (Ficus bengalensis), the most revered of Indian trees under which Buddha sat andreceived enlightenment at Bodh Gaya (Sahni 1998, 153-56). Akbar had left an imprint of his hand on its trunk. Jahangir hadthe tree’s measurements taken and added his own hand mark next to the one of his father. To keep these imperial imprintsfor posterity, he had them both carved on a piece of marble which was attached to the trunk of the tree. In addition, aplatform (chabut[a]ra) was put up around it (Rogers 1909-14/1994, 1: 360; Thackston 1999, 211).

In the following year, in 1618, in the garden of his son Khurram (then already entitled Shah Jahan) at Ahmedabad,Jahangir noted a maulsari (also spelled maulsiri, maulshree) tree or bullet wood (Mimusops elengi) (Sahni 1998, pp. 119-20)with a bench around its trunk. The trunk had a hole over which Jahangir had a marble tablet fixed, so that one could use itas back rest while sitting on the bench. An inscription on the tablet, today in the British Museum at London, marked the

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

166

Fig. 11. Jahangir has a palm tree with aforked trunk measured in 1617 nearUjjain, illustration of the Jahangirnama,Rampur, Raza Library, Album 1, fol. 8a.Fig. 12. White marble tablet withinscription of Jahangir dated 1618/A.H.1027, serving originally as a backrest ofa bench around a bullet wood tree atAhmadabad. British Museum, onpermanent loan from the Society ofAntiquaries London 1965-5-194. (Photoby Ebba Koch taken in 1991).

whole, in the words of Jahangir, “as a memento on the page of time”:The seat (nishastgāh) of the Shah of the seven climates (kishvar),Jahangir, son of Akbar Shahinshah 1618/A.H. 1027 (Fig. 13).24

It is noteworthy that, in this case, Jahangir did not imprint atree in the wild, but that he appropriated a tree in the garden of hisson. His intrusion can be seen in two ways: either as a mark ofdistinction of Shah Jahan who was then still his favorite son anddesignated heir, or else, a demonstration of landownership. This bringsus to a yet unsolved issue of Mughal governance, namely privatelyowned property. A decree of Jahangir at his accession—the fourth oftwelve—that he would not touch the property (mal va manāl) of hissubjects,25 whether nonbeliever (kāfir) or Muslim (Rogers 1909-14/1994,1: 8; Thackston 1999, 26; Hashim 1359/1980, 6), certainly did not refer tothe gardens of the nobility and members of his family. Upon theirdeath, their gardens went to the crown, and the emperor would either keep them for himself, or bestow them ontosomebody else (Koch 2006, 28). The imperial imprinting of Hindustan with garden elements also demonstrates the imperialclaim on the land.

Rocks Sculpted into ElephantsThe demonstration of imperial control over nature, or “Mughalization” of nature, also stands behind the practice ofcarving elephant figures out of rocks in various regions of the empire. The elephant—the all time favorite animal of Indiaand revered as the elephant-headed Ganesh, son of Shiva—was also an important status symbol of the Mughals (Koch inBeach, Koch, Thackston 1997, 185-87 ). Blissfully ignoring that sculpting animals (and humans) in the round was the mostreprehensible form of breaking the Islamic injunctions against the making of images, the Mughals went out of their way torevive the ancient Indian tradition of carving religious images out of rocks. By giving the elephants dynastic inscriptions,they transformed this revivalist exercise with a specific political touch. The aim seems to have been, like in the rockgardens and appropriated springs and trees, to set an imperial mark on Hindustan, in Indian terms so to say. The rockimages form part of a larger series of elephant sculptures decorating the gates of the great Mughal fortress palaces inimitation of the elephant gates of Indian rulers. Babur admired “a sculptured image of an elephant with two drivers (fil-bān)” at the Hathi Pul, the Elephant Gate of Raja Man Singh’s palace at Gwalior, which was “exactly like an elephant”(Beveridge 1921/1970, 609). His successors, beginning with Akbar, took up the idea and the great fortress palaces of theMughals, the Agra fort, Fatepur Sikri and the Delhi fort, each had a gate flanked by large sculptures of elephants.26

It was also Akbar who started the tradition of having rocks sculpted into elephants. In 1601 he had an elephant cutout of a rock in the Tapti River in front of the palace fortress of Burhanpur. We learn from the later Mughal historianMuhammad Hashim Khafi Khan, who wrote in the first half of the eighteenth century, that this act had a special meaningin wresting Burhanpur from the Faruqi rulers of Khandesh (1382-1601). It is worth including the full passage, thus far nottranslated, because it reveals the political meaning of Akbar’s action.

It is said that in the river Tapti which is close to the city of Burhanpur there was a large rock. According to thepronouncement of his Holiness Burhan al-Din—who was one of the great religious persons of that time and theFaruqi rulers gave the city of Burhanpur his name after they had developed it—so what the shaikh stated was: ‘Aslong as this piece of stone will remain in its original form, the kingdom will remain in your possession. But whenthis stone will be changed into the figure of an elephant, the fort and the dominion will get out of the hand of yourdynasty.’ After a prolonged siege the city came into the possession of Arsh Ashyani [posthumous name of Akbar]

ebba ko

ch

167

Fig. 13. Rock, shaped into an elephant by Akbar in1601, lying in the Tapti River in front of Burhanpurfort. (Photo by Ebba Koch taken in 1984).

but not the fort, and when he learned about the pronouncement of the spiritual leader (pir-i din) of the Faruqis he commanded skilled (sangtarāshān-i chābuk dast) and in the turn of a hand they sculpted that piece of rock into the image (s�ūrat) of an elephant. And because of the firm belief they had in their own pir, Sultan Bahadur [Faruqi] lost his courage [and his dominion to Akbar].27

The unsculpted rock in its raw naturalstate appears here as a token of thesovereignty of the Faruqis, threatened by thepotential of an elephant figure whichsymbolized a power higher than theirs. It wasAkbar who was destined to activate it and toobtain victory through it—the elephant asancient Indian symbol of royalty was his—notthe Faruqi sultans’. The passage makes a keystatement for our argument because itillustrates that in Mughal eyes thetransformation of nature into art, of a rockinto an elephant sculpture, was an act ofsovereignty.

The statue in the Tapti River excitedthe interest of many a European traveler. TheEnglish merchant William Finch saw it inFebruary 1610 and had this to say about:

By the castle’s side in the river lyeth an elephant of stone, so lively[i.e. lifelike] that a living elephant, coming one day to drinke, ranne against it with all his force and brake both his teeth. The head is painted red in the fore-head, and many simple Indians worship it (Foster 1921/1985: 138).

Later travelers also comment on itsliveliness and that it had become the object ofveneration by the Hindus, as representation of

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

168

Fig. 14. Sculpture of male elephant shaped out of the living rock, harnessed withchains and ropes, and with fragments of a mahout, lying on a platform at theHathinala pass (Chauk-i Hatti) near Naushera on the Mughal road over the PirPanchal pass into Kashmir, 1625-26/A.H. 1035. (Photo after Archaeological Surveyof India, published in 1917-18).Fig. 15. Remnants of female elephant, the counterpart of the male elephant atHathinala. It lies on a platform showing ornamentation characteristic ofJahangir’s period, a topping molding with an in and out crenellation (kangura)pattern, and blind shouldered and multi-cusped arches in a framework ofbands with squarish and oblong cusped cartouches.

.

Ganesh. The rock elephant still exists though no more in its once acclaimed naturalistic form (Fig. 13) (Elephant shapedrock of Akbar).28

Needless to say, that elephant carving was also a favorite of Jahangir, the dominant figure of the Mughalimprinting of nature; he was the first to highlight these sculptures with inscriptions containing their creation date and hisown name. Early in his reign when on his way to Kabul, he had an elephant carved out of a white rock in the riverbed(presumably of the Sorkhrud) at Nimla near Jalalabad; on its breast he had ordered the hemistich inscription: “The whitestone elephant of Jahangir Padshah [1607/A.H. 1016].”29

At Ajmer an elephant is recorded, carved out of a single rock which bears the inscription:

The chronogram of this stone elephant by Divine mystery, came out: This piece of rock – the elephant of Jahangir padshah [giving the date 1613-14/A.H. 1022] (Tirmizi 1963,32).

The most splendid (unfortunately badly damaged) elephants, a male-female pair, were put up near the end of hisreign at the Hathinala pass (in Mughal times Chauki Hatti). This is located close to the village Khodi near Naushera on themain imperial road over the Pir Panjal pass into Kashmir (Fig. 14 and 15).30 The elephants are cut out of the living rock andthey are shown as courtly creatures, each with its trappings, and with remnants of a māhūt, an elephant driver. Even intheir ruined state they strongly convey the nature of elephants lying down on a platform, that one reacts to them likeBabur to the elephants of Gwalior. It is also unclear where sculptural art of such quality came from, in an age when it wassupposed to be non-extant. Jahangir does not mention the elephants in his autobiography but one of the inscriptions setoriginally into their necks (no longer in place when the elephants were recorded in 1917-18, but in the house of a dignitaryof the village) proclaim, that they were made for the emperor on the occasion of his visit of the Hijrī year 1035. This musthave taken place in the first month of the Hijrī year, in Muharram, corresponding to October 1625, when he was on his wayout of Kashmir to Lahore (Thackston 1999, 434). The inscription, according to the reading of Shastri, produces the date1625-26/A.H. 1035 and contains the name of what seems to be the artist, a Hindu, as well as the name of a scribe. It says:

God is great! 1) This statue of the powerful elephant was completed through the agency of Manha [the Hindu artist?] atthe arrival of Emperor Jahangir. 2) I asked of my intellect the Hijrī date and it said: the twentieth year since the accession of the padshah[i.e. the Hijrī year 1035 which corresponds to 1625].Abd al-Ghaffur, the slave of God (Shastri 1919, 3; Kak 1923, 56 and PL. IV a and b).

We cannot speak here of gardens but rather of the transformation of particular spots in nature and theiraccentuation with dynastic imprints. However, when we take all these phenomena together—the rock cut gardens,enframed grottoes with sacred springs, enframed springs, trees furnished with royal seats and inscriptions, rocks sculptedinto elephants—the image of a garden emerges which stands for the Mughal territories, between Kabul and the Deccan.Jahangir plays on the ancient connection between kingship and garden but gives it an entirely new and highly originaltwist which is without precedent in the Persianate and Indian tradition. When he transforms his whole empire into hisgarden, he does not do so metaphorically as “the good gardener” who improves agricultural production (Subtelny 2002,103-06, and 58-65 et passim), but literally as the dynastically legitimated king who claims nature as his own with artisticmeans.

While Jahangir’s project is unique for a ruler anywhere and at any time—only a Mughal padshah would proceedwith such “laid back” (to use a contemporary expression) ingenuity and think in such universalistic terms—the idea to give

ebba ko

ch

169

nature an artistic expression links up again, in a nonreligious garden context, with contemporary trends in Europe. Onethinks here of Mannerist gardens of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and quite striking is the comparisonwith Bomarzo northwest of Rome (created in 1547), with its inscriptions and rock cut figures which include a largeelephant. Similar is the concern to wed nature with art, although the cultural context and the intentions were different.Bomarzo was influenced by philosophical reflections and expressed the theme nature versus culture.

TThhee AArrttiiffiicciiaall GGaarrddeennOne would assume that such ideas would be abandoned under Shah Jahan, when well ordered geometric schemes informedall his art, architecture, and gardens. However, this was not so. Earlier imperial imprints on nature and the transformationof nature were sublimated in the concept of the artificial garden in which the manipulation of natural material gave way topure artifice. This was again to serve the imperial image. In order to express the idea that the setting of the emperor was agarden and as such a metaphor of his rule, artificial trees were created in the form of columns styled “cypress bodied (sarvandām).” They had the shape of tapering baluster columns and were decorated with plants. They held significance for awider Indian audience because they grew out of pots with overflowing leaves, thus integrating the motif of the vase ofplenty, an ancient auspicious symbol of Hindu architecture. The tree columns carried the baldachins of the thrones of Shah

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

170

Fig. 16. Cypress columns, pool and water chute all of marble, forming part of the garden building of the Shah Burj of Shah Jahan’spalace in the Red Fort of Delhi, 1639-48. (Photo by Ebba Koch taken in 1993).

Jahan which had a curved organic roof, called bangla, and both formed an artificial bower and were thus the “signifiers” of“the artificial garden,” of a new architecture with naturalistically sculpted leaves, carved and inlaid flowering plants, andmarble pools and channels. The artificial garden was the imperial garden, permanent and above the laws of nature, and itsymbolized the good government of Shah Jahan who brought forth everlasting bloom in Hindustan (Fig. 16).31

The political message of Shah Jahan’s new plant vocabulary, made more persuasive by its seductive aesthetics, wasso powerful that it led to a floralization of all later Mughal architecture and to a wide acceptance of organic architecturalforms in all types of buildings throughout India. Thus what had begun as the most unorthodox of Mughal garden typeshad, in the last analysis, the greatest impact.

BBiibblliiooggrraapphhyy

Ahmad, Kabir al-Din, ed. The Muntakhab al-Lubab of Khafi Khan. Part 1, Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1869.

Alvi, M.A. and A. Rahman. Jahangir the Naturalist. New Delhi: The National Institute of Sciences, 1968.

Asher, Catherine B. “Babur and the Timurid Char Bagh: Use and Meaning.” In Mughal Architecture: Pomp andCeremonies, Environmental Design (1991, no. 1-2): 46-55.

——— and Cynthia Talbot. India before Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Beach, M.C., Ebba Koch and Wheeler Thackston. King of the World: The Padshahnama: An Imperial Manuscript from theRoyal Library, Windsor Castle. London: Azimuth Editions and Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, SmithsonianInstitution, 1997.

Beveridge, Anette Susannah. Babur-Nama (Memoirs of Babur): Translated from the Original Turki Text of Zahiru’d-dinMuhammad Babur Padshah Ghazi. 1921. Reprint, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1970.

Crane, Howard C. “Babur: 1483-1530: Mogul Ruler and Garden Designer.” Encyclopedia of Gardens: History and Design.Edited by C. A. Shoemaker. Vol. 1, 98-101. Chicago and London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2001.

Fairchild-Ruggles, D. “Humayun’s Tomb and Garden: Typologies and Visual Order.” In Gardens in the Time of the GreatMuslim Empires: Theory and Design, edited by Attilio Petruccioli, Vol. 7, 173-79 of Muqarnas Supplements. Brill: Leiden,New York, Cologne, 1997.

Foster, William, ed. Early Travels in India: 1583-1619. London: Oxford University Press, 1921. Reprint, New Delhi:Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1985.

Hasan, Zafar. “Inscriptions of Dhar and Mandu.” Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica (1909-10): 6–27.

Hashim, Muhammad, ed. Jahangirnama: Tuzuk-i Jahangiri by Nur al-Din Muhammad Jahangir Gurgani. Tehran:Intisharat-i Bunyad –i Farhag-i Iran 1980/ Iranian Solar 1359.

Hosain, Hidayat, ed. Tarikh-i Shahi (also known as Tarikh-i Salatin-i Afaghina) of Ahmad Yadgar. Calcutta: Royal AsiaticSociety of Bengal, 1939..

Husain, Muhammad A. An Historical Guide to the Agra Fort Based on Contemporary Records. Delhi: Manager ofPublications, 1937.

The Indian Heritage: Court Life and Arts under Mughal Rule. Exhibition catalogue, London: Victoria and Albert Museum,1982.

ebba ko

ch

171

172

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

Kak, Ram Ch. “Antiquities of Bhimbar and Rajauri.” Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India. No. 14 (1923).

Koch, Ebba. Mughal Architecture: An Outline of Its History and Development 1526-1858. Munich: Prestel, 1991. Reprint, NewDelhi: Oxford University Press, 2002.

———. “The Delhi of the Mughals prior to Shahjahanabad as Reflected in the Patterns of Imperial Visits.” In Art andCulture: Felicitation Volume in Honour of Professor S. Nurul Hasan, edited by A. J. Qaisar and S. P. Verma, 2-20. Jaipur:Publication Scheme, 1993. Reprint in Koch 2001, 163-82.

———. Mughal Art and Imperial Ideology: Collected Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001.

———. “Mughal Palace Gardens from Babur to Shah Jahan (1526-1648).” Muqarnas, 14 (1997b): 143-165; Reprint inKoch 2001, 203-28.

———. “The Mughal Waterfront Garden.” In Gardens in the Time of the Great Muslim Empires: Theory and Design, editedby Attilio Petruccioli. Vol. 7, 140-60. Muqarnas Supplements. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1997a; Reprint in Koch 2001,183-202.

———. “The Intellectual and Artistic Climate at Akbar’s Court.” In John Seyller, The Adventures of Hamza: Painting andStorytelling in Mughal India. Exhibiton catalogue. London: Azimuth Editions and Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institution,2002, 18-31.

———. The Complete Taj Mahal and the Riverfront Gardens of Agra. London: Thames & Hudson, 2006.

Lohlker, Rüdiger and Andrea Nowak-Enshaie. “Das islamische Paradies als Zeichen: Zwischen Märtyrerkult undGarten [Islamic Paradise as Signifier: Between the Cult of the Martyrs and the Garden].” Der Islam. Forthcoming.

Moynihan, Elisabeth B. “The Lotus Garden: Palace of Zahir al- Din Muhammad Babur.” Muqarnas 5 (1988): 135-52.

Nath, R.. Mughal Sculpture: Study of Stone Sculptures of Birds, Beasts, Mythical Animals, Human Beings and Deities in MughalArchitecture. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, no date.

Petruccioli, Attilio. “I giardini moghul del Kashmir.” In Il giardino islamico: Architettura, natura, paesaggio, edited byAttilio Petruccioli, 249-66. Milan: Electa, 1994.

Rauschenbach, Sina. “Wissenschaft zwischen politischer Repräsentation und gesellschaftlichen Nutzen. Über denTraum vom gelehrten Herrscher in der Frühen Neuzeit [Science between Political Representation and Use bySociety: About the Dream of the Scholarly Ruler in the Early Modern Period].” In R. van Dülmen and SinaRauschenbach, Macht des Wissens: Die Entstehung der modernen Wissenschaftsgesellschaft. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna:Boehlau, 2004, 295-318.

Rizvi, S., Athar Abbas, and Vincent J. A. Flynn. Fathpur Sikri. Bombay: D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1975.

Rogers, Alexander, trans. The Tuzuk-i Jahangiri or Memoirs of Jahangir. 2 Vols. Edited by H. Beveridge, 1909–14. Reprint,Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1994.

Sahni, K.C. The Book of Indian Trees. Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Sanderson, Gordon. A Guide to the Buildings and Gardens, Delhi Fort. 1914; Revised reprint, 1918; Revised reprint, Delhi:Manager of Publications, 1937.

Schimmel, Annemarie. A Two-Colored Brocade: The Imagery of Persian Poetry. Chapel Hill and London: University ofNorth Carolina Press, 1992.

Schmitz, Barbara and Ziyaud-Din Desai. Mughal and Persian Paintings and Illustrated Manuscripts in the Raza Library,

ebba ko

ch

173

Rampur. New Delhi and Rampur: Aryan Books International, 2006.

Shastri, Pandit H. Annual Progress Report of the Archaeological Department, Jammu and Kashmir State for the Vikrama Year1974 (A.D. 1917-18). Jammu: Printed under the supervision of Diwan Alim Chand, G.C. Spdt. R. Press, 1919.

Skelton Robert. “Europe and India.” In Europa und die Kunst des Islam: 15.-18. Jahrhundert, Akten des XXV. InternationalenKongresses für Kunstgeschichte Wien 4.- 10. September 1983. Vol. 5, Section 5. Edited by Hermann Fillitz and MartinaPippal, 33-42. Vienna, Cologne, Graz: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1985.

Skelton, Robert, et al. The Indian Heritage: Court Life and Arts under Mughal Rule. Exhibition catalogue. London: Victoria andAlbert Museum, 1982.

Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. Explorations in Connected History: From the Tagus to the Ganges. New Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress, 2005.

Subtelny, Maria E. Le monde est un jardin: aspects de l’histoire culturelle de l’Iran médiéval, Cahiers de Studia Iranica 28(2002).

Temple, Richard C. ed. The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608–1667. 3 Vols. London: The Haklyut Society1911–19; vol. 2 1914, reprint Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Ltd., 1967; new reprinting in the USA, 1991.

Thackston, Wheeler, trans, ed. and annot. Bâburnama. Chaghatay Turkish Text with Abdul-Rahim Khankhanan’sPersian Translation, Turkish Transcription. 3 Vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Near Eastern Languages andCivilization, 1993.

———. The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India. Washington, DC.: Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M.Sackler Gallery. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Tirmizi, S.A.I.. Ajmer through Inscriptions (1532-1852 A.D.). New Delhi: Indian Institute of Islamic Studies, 1968.

van der Ree, Paul, Gerrit Smienk and Clemens Steenbergen. Italian Villas and Gardens. Munich: Prestel, 1993.

Welch, Anthony. “Gardens That Babur Did Not Like: Landscape, Water, and Architecture for the Sultans of Delhi.” InMughal Gardens: Sources, Places, Representations, and Prospects, edited by James Wescoat and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn, 59-94. 6th Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture. Washington, D.C. 1996.

Welch, Stuart C. Wonders of the Age: Masterpieces of Early Safavid Painting, 1501-1576. Cambridge, Mass: Fogg Art Museum,Harvard University, 1979.

Wescoat, James. “Garden versus Citadels: The Territorial Context of Early Mughal Gardens.” Garden History: Issues,Approaches, Methods, 331-58. Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 13, edited by JohnDixon Hunt. Washington, D.C. 1992.

my

gar

den

is

hin

du

stan

: th

e m

ug

hal

pad

shah

’sre

aliz

atio

n o

f a

poli

tica

l m

etap

ho

r

174

NNootteess

1 For the question of how far Babur’s claim was justified, see Welch 1996. 2 Babur employs this term for most of his gardens which he founded in the area of today’s Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India. For a briefoverview of Babur’s gardens, see Crane 2001.3 Hosain 1939, 120-21. The full passage has been translated in Koch 1997a, 184.4 This leaves us with the dilemma of whether to apply the term, see Fairchild Ruggles 1997, 175. I am inclined to do so while specifying the particularform.5 The architectural vocabulary of the Mughal chahār bāgh can be established from surviving gardens seen together with their descriptions by thehistorians of Shah Jahan, such as Muhammad Amin Qazwini, cAbd al-Hamid Lahawri, Muhammad Warith in their official chronicles of the emperor’sreign. They followed the emperor’s directions who wanted to have his buildings described in precise architectural terminology. The elementscomprise: paved walkways (khiyaban) which create subdivisions (chaman); garden pavilions (cimarat, nashiman); pools or tanks (hawz) sunken into aplatform (chabutra). The walkways may contain sunken channels (nahr). At the points where the walkways meet the garden wall (diwar), real or falsegateways (darwaza) may be placed. The garden is enclosed by a wall (diwar) with towers (burj) at its corners. The terrace garden has in addition a seriesof terraces (martaba), waterfalls (abshar), often in the form of a thin water sheet (chadar) falling straight down in front of a wall. The wall containsregisters of small niches (taqcha, chini khana) in which, during the day small flower vases were placed, during the night candles, both producing acharming effect behind the thin moving water sheet. Another variant of a water fall is a textured stone slab, usually with a fish scale pattern, termedmahi pusht. Abshar, chadar, taqcha, chini khana and textured water chutes may also occur on a smaller scale in the cross axial chahār bāgh and the waterfront garden.6 See Asher 1991 who points out that Babur’s gardens, beyond mere territorial conquest and the introduction of a new aesthetic, were conceived as avisual metaphor for his ability to control and order the arid Indian plains and ultimately its population. Cf. Wescoat 1992. Subtelny 2002 has taken acomparable view in her analysis of the relationship of Iranian rulers and gardens.7 We have to rely mainly on the preserved evidence and the court historians who are our main source focusing on the deeds of the emperors. How farthe nobility wanted or was allowed to follow is, for lack of evidence, almost impossible to establish. The only example I am aware of is Shah BudaghKhan’s Nilkanth at Mandu discussed below.8 For Akbar, see recently e.g. Koch 2002, 21-22, with further literature. 9 Even in darbar, or court reception scenes, the emperor may show himself in the lotus position; see e.g. an illustration of the autobiographical historyof his reign, the Jahangirnama (Schmitz 2003, Pl. 3).10 In this volume, in double dates separated by a backstroke, the first date is according to the Christian date (Gregorian calendar) the second daterepresents its equivalent according to the Hegiran (Hijrī) calendar followed by most Muslims the world over. Since the Hijrī calendar is a lunar one, itmoves against the solar year, and thus usually corresponds to parts of two solar years. In quotes from other authors the Hijrī date is indicated beforethe Christian date which is the more common scholarly convention.11 The garden was first studied by Moynihan 1988, with plans.12 When I last visited the garden in March 2003 the large pool was used as a latrine by the villagers! 13 Rogers 1909–14, rpt. 1994, 1:108-09; Thackston 1999, 76-77; I have inserted into Rogers’ translation the Persian term takht-i padshah (which means“emperor” rather than “king”) from the Persian edition of the text by Hashim 1359 /1980, 63. I thank Wheeler Thackston for presenting me with acopy of this volume. On a trip to Kabul in November 2005, I was not able to ascertain whether the Mughal seats and pools on the Takht-i Shah stillexist. 14 Sura 56, verse 11ff promises that believers will be served drinks in the paradisiacal gardens which will not bring about hangovers. See Lohlker andNowak-Enshaie, forthcoming.15 Babur passed through Bamiyan in 1505 and mentions it repeatedly during his stay at Kabul. See Thackston 1996, 3: 204 and Index. 16 Hasan 1909-1910, 26-27. The owl is in Persianate culture a sinister bird associated with ruins, see Schimmel, 185-86. Famous is the episode of theSasanian king Anushirwan and the owls in the ruined village who predict the downfall of his empire if he continues to rule unjustly. See Welch 1979,138-41.17 The Mughal chronograms are worked out according to the arrangement of the Arabic alphabet called abjad which gives each letter a numericalvalue.18 As translated by Tirmizi, 1968, 36-38; for a brief discussion of the site see also Koch 1991/2002, 24, Pl. X, and 85-86.19 See e.g. Alvi and Rahman 1968. For instance, Jahangir was the first to describe the breeding habits of the sarus crane (Grus antigone) and is still quotedin ornithological works. 20 Rauschenbach 2004. I am extending her observations to Jahangir.21 Subrahmanyam 2005, 15.22 I have long since been intrigued by the phenomenon that the Mughals did not only take from European art what served their artistic purposes butalso in their patronage showed surprisingly similar attitudes to European princely patrons. Jahangir appears as a counterpart of Rudolf II of Habsburg(ruler 1576-1612), a topic which I have been discussing with Robert Skelton, and Shah Jahan anticipates much of Louis XIV (ruler 1643-1715). I haveaddressed the issue in several studies reprinted as the first five chapters of Koch 2001, and I am addressing it again in the exhibition “DieGrossmoghuln und Europa (The Great Mughals and Europe)” which I have been planning for the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna for 2007,unfortunately presently cancelled out of budgetary reasons. See also Skelton 1983. Sanjay Subrahmanyam has discussed the problem of phenomena

.

ebba ko

ch

175

linking up in different parts of the world in the sixteenth century and speaks of the power of synchronism and synergetic cultural and materialprocesses in different societies. See Subrahmanyam 2005, especially 134-37. 23 The translation is from Rogers 1909-14/1994 1, 353, with comparisons to Thackston 1999, 208. See also Alvi and Rahman 1968, 119. 24 My translation, see also Rogers 1909-14/1994, 2: 31; Skelton 1982, 26; Thackston 1999, 273. The white marble tablet with the inscription is currentlyheld in the Department of Oriental Antiquities, British Museum, on permanent loan from the Society of Antiquaries of London 1956-5-194. 25 An exception was the garden of Mumtaz Mahal at Agra which she bequeathed directly to her daughter Jahanara. See Koch 2006, 41.26 For the Agra fort elephants see Husain 1937, p. 45; for the Fatepur Sikri elephants, see Rizvi and Flynn 1975, 67; for the Delhi elephants see Sanderson1914/1937, 9-10. For sculpture in Mughal architecture generally see Nath n.d.27 Ahmad 1869, 214-15. I thank Dr. M. Yunus Jaffery for his help in the translation of this passage.28 Finch was the first of the European observers to note the elephant, and afterwards it features in most of the seventeenth centuries’ travelogues.Peter Mundy, to quote a further instance, saw it in 1630 (Temple 1914/1967/1991, 2: 51), with references to reports of other travelers in note 3. 29 Rogers 1909-14/1994, 1: 103-04, Thackston 1999, 75. According to abjad, reckoning the numerical values of the letters of the phrase produce the date1022/1613-14. So far I have not been able to find out whether this sculpture survives. 30 Jahangir mentions a new building and a fine terrace as the halting place in October 1620 before the statues were put up. See Rogers 1909-14/1994,2:181; Thackston 1999, 350. I do not know whether the elephants still exist; my observations are based on the reports of Shastri and Kak, cited below,and the photographs of Kak taken in 1923 which I reproduce here.31 I have, in several previous studies, identified the baluster column, the bangla roof, and the plant forms of the architecture of Shah Jahan, as symbolsof reign; for the gist of the argument see Koch 1997b, reprint in Koch 2001, 225-28. This has now been generally recognized and accepted, see e.g.Asher 2006, 200.