Indian Painting under the Mughals, A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1750 c14.31

c14.31

It seems more than likely that from the mural decoration of Fathpur Sikri Akbar conceived the idea of reviving the pictorial art of India by means of a properly organized school of painting. As we have seen, something of the kind in a small way had already been in existence since Humayun’s time at the Mughal court; but at the new capital the first steps were taken to put the art of painting on a suitable footing by creating a special department for its encouragement. From his earliest days Akbar had shown a decided liking for this form of expression. He had been encouraged to do so by his father, for as we have shown previously both Humayun and his son took lessons in drawing under the Persian artist Khwajah Abdus Samad. History does not often record a prince of royal blood actually practising with the brush itself, an attitude of beneficent patronage being generally considered sufficient, but Akbar and his father were both more than usually interested in pictures. ‘From his earliest youth’, writes Akbar’s historian Abu’l Fazl, ‘His Majesty has shown a great predilection for this art, and gives it every encouragement, as he looks upon it as a means, both of study and amusement.’ Akbar’s own remarks on the subject, made to a gathering of his courtiers, and written down by the same chronicler, are still more pregnant. ‘There are many that hate painting; but such men I dislike. It appears to me as if a painter had quite peculiar means of recognizing God; for a painter in sketching anything that has life, and in devising its limbs, one after the other, must come to feel that he cannot bestow individuality upon his work, and is thus forced to think of God, the Giver of life, and will thus increase in knowledge.’ This very carefully composed expression of opinion was recorded, not so much to emphasize Akbar’s appreciation of painting, but to explain to his more orthodox followers his reasons for setting at naught the Prophet’s law relating to the representation of living, especially human, forms. Moreover, so that there might be no misapprehension on this point, the historian himself introduces it by a statement of his own, specially intended to prepare the reader for the particular view quoted above. ‘I have to notice’, Abu’l Fazl writes, ‘that the observing of the figures of objects and the making of likenesses of them, which are often looked upon as an idle occupation, are, for a well-regulated mind, a source of wisdom and an antidote against the poison of ignorance.’ And here follows a sentence which points directly to the cause of these somewhat elaborate reflections: ‘Bigoted followers of the letter of the law are hostile to the art of painting; but their eyes now see the truth.’