The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.s1.2.4

v3.c30.s1.2.4

The superb surface decorations which distinguish this building have been widely renovated in the course of the centuries, but, though many of the details have undoubtedly been changed, there is no reason to suppose that their general character—the bands of carved timbering let into the walls, the elaborately chiselled brickwork, and the richly coloured tiling—is markedly different from the original. Compared with the memorials of the Sayyid and Lodī kings at Delhi, or with the still more magnificent tomb of Sher Shāh at Sahsarām, it must be conceded that in the matter of surface ornament and particularly of brilliant colour effects, the tomb of Rukn-i-‘Ālam has the advantage. On the other hand, what it gains in these respects it loses in rhythmic grace and in the poetry of composition. The difference between these monuments is the difference largely between the Persian and the Indian ideals. For despite the presence of many obviously Indian features in the tomb of Rukn-i-‘Ālam, and despite the local character of much of its craftsmanship, based on pre-Muslim traditions, the spirit underlying its design is largely Persian, while that of Sher Shāh's tomb has gone far to becoming Indian.