The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.38.2

v3.c30.38.2

Yet even their pristine whiteness could not atone for the monotonous bareness of their walls. What little surface ornament there was generally took the form of inscribed borders, medallions in the arch spandrels and such-like simple and conventional devices. Of the rich imaginative designs in which the Indian fancy rejoices, there were none; nor, on the other hand, was there, save in rare cases, that sense of aerial spaciousness which is able on occasion to compensate for the absence of decorative beauty. The virtues of this architecture reside in its vigour and straightforwardness; in its simple broad effects; and in the purposefulness with which it evolved new structural features or adapted old ones to its needs—the multi-domed roofing, for example, or the tapering minaret-like buttresses at the quoins. Its faults are seen in the monotonous reiteration of these self-same features, in the prosaic nakedness of its ideas, and in the dearth of everything that might make for picturesque charm or elegance. How much this architecture suffered from the lack of Hindu craftsmanship can best be gauged by comparing it with the work of the Lodī or early Mughul periods, when the magic touch of Hindu genius had again endowed it with life and warmth. The fact, however, that under the Tughluq dynasty Hindu influence was from one cause or another reduced to its lowest ebb, must not be taken to imply that it was altogether a negligible factor.