The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.s1.10

Language: English

v3.c30.s1.10.1

After the expulsion of Rāja Kāns’s House in 1438, the buildings of the restored Ilyās Shāh dynasty become more numerous. Besides other monuments of lesser note, there are the *Sāth Gumbad* mosque and tomb of Khān-i-Jahān ‘Alī at Bagerhāt, both dating from about 1459; while at Gaur there is the Dākhil Gateway, believed to have been built by Bārbak Shāh (1459–74), the Tāntīpāra, Daras Bārī and Lotan *masjids* ascribed to his son, Yūsuf Shāh (1474–81), and the Gunmant mosque erected probably a few years later. Of these the first mentioned—the *Sāth Gumbad* mosque—is noteworthy for its corner turrets, which are strongly reminiscent of Tughluq architecture, and for the unusual treatment of its frontal cornice, which instead of being curvilinear, slopes away in straight lines from a small triangular pediment over the central bay. The interior is a fine spacious apartment albeit somewhat marred by the exaggerated slenderness of its stone pillars. The *Dākhil Darwāza*—the most striking of several gateways at Gaur—is a superb example of what can be achieved in brick and terracotta. Sixty feet in height by 113 feet from back to front, it consists of a central arched passage with guard rooms on either side. At each of its four corners is a five-storeyed tapering turret, once crowned by a dome.

v3.c30.s1.10.2

Walls and turrets alike are relieved by string courses and mouldings, and adorned further with sunk panels, niches and rosettes and other motifs of Hindu origin, among which the chain and bell, battlement and quatrefoil are conspicuous. But the outstanding merit of this gateway is the surprising boldness of its design and the masterly skill with which its façades have been broken up and diversified by alternating effects of light and shade. Between the Dākhil Gateway and the Tāntīpāra *masjid* erected (if we may accept the traditional dates) only ten years later, there is a marked divergence of style. The latter—an oblong brick structure of two aisles divided by stone pillars down the centre—has suffered sadly from the effects of time. Its roof has gone entirely and large sections of its walls have collapsed. Yet, even in its ruin, it is still an object of beauty. Cunningham considered it the finest edifice of all in Gaur, and if perfection of detail were the criterion of good architecture, his opinion would be fully justified. In the matter of superficial ornament, indeed, the Tāntīpāra *masjid* marks the zenith of the Bengal school. In other respects, however, it shows signs of incipient decadence. Where the Dākhil Gateway is virile, the *masjid* is effeminate; where the former is free and spontaneous, the latter is mannered and formal; and even its lace-like ornamentation, beautiful as it is in itself, must be admitted to be verging on the meretricious.

v3.c30.s1.10.3

The same remarks apply also to the decoration of the Daras Bārī mosque which belongs to about the same age but is even more sorely battered than the Tāntīpāra. The Lotan *masjid* which is another of the monuments ascribed to Yūsuf Shāh is the best surviving example of a type of mosque peculiar to Bengal. It is said to take its name (otherwise Lattan or Nattan) from Nattu, a favourite dancing girl of the Emperor. Like the Chamkhan *masjid*, which appears from its style to be somewhat older but is neither so large nor so well preserved, it is constructed of brick and consists of a square prayer chamber—manifestly built on the model of the Eklākhī tomb—with an arched verandah added on to its eastern side, the whole structure measuring 72½ feet long by 52 feet wide. Inside and out, the brickwork was once covered with glazed tiles of blue, white, yellow and green. Much of this tilework has now perished, but what remains of it does not suggest that it could ever have been very attractive. Here and there were a few effective ornaments, such as blue and white lotus medallions in the spandrels, but most of the decoration took the form of narrow alternating bands of colour, which are merely restless and bewildering to the eye. Such decoration has little to commend it.

v3.c30.s1.10.4

It misses the picturesque and imaginative colouring of the tile-enamelled buildings of Persia, and equally it misses the charm of reticence and restraint which characterise the use of coloured tilework at Multān and Delhi. That it could have appealed much to the taste of artists who were capable of designing the Dākhil Gateway or the Tāntīpāra *masjid* is *primâ facie* unlikely, and its presence can only be accounted for on the supposition that coloured tiling was considered the fashionable thing at the moment for mosques, and that no better tiles than these were obtainable in Bengal. Glazed tilework was used also in the Gunmant mosque at Gaur, but here the coloured decoration was supplemented by reliefs on stone or plaster, and it is significant that the latter was employed in the most conspicuous part of the building, i.e. in the main hall of the prayer chamber, whereas the tilework was relegated to a subordinate position in the wings. The ground plan of this masjid is not unlike that of the Ādīna. It consists, that is to say, of a central vaulted hall (51 × 17 feet) flanked to right and left by an arcaded wing, each wing divided into twelve bays (viz. three aisles with four openings to the front) and roofed with as many domes. The wings are in no way remarkable, but the central hall, with its stone masonry and decorative reliefs embossed on the soffit of the vaulted roof, is a fresh departure inaugurating, as we shall see, a new phase in the history of this school.

v3.c30.s1.10.5

Both stonework and reliefs, to be sure, had long before been anticipated in the Ādīna *Masjid*; but in those early days the stone had been stripped from Hindu temples, and when the supply from this source had failed, its place had been taken by brick. From now onwards stone again comes into fashion, being specially quarried in the distant Balasore and Rājmahal Hills and conveyed to Gaur by water. Although, too, the reliefs in the Gunmant mosque were doubtless inspired by those in the Ādīna, the new work was very different from the old. This will be apparent at a glance if the reader will compare the illustrations of the Ādīna *Masjid* carvings (Figs. 33 and 34) with those of the Gunmant and Chhotā Sonā masjids (Figs. 38 and 41). Technically and artistically the former are far superior. They exhibit all the refinement and natural spontaneity of the old Hindu school of Eastern India which for five centuries and more had been producing carving of this kind in stone. The latter are careful, painstaking efforts and by no means unattractive, but in a great measure imitative of the terracotta relief work which for some generations had supplanted stone sculpture, and which being moulded out of soft clay was little adapted for reproduction in the harder material.