The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.s1.20
The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.s1.20
- Language
- English
v3.c30.s1.20
Considering how effectually local tradition dominated the Indo-Islamic architecture of Gujarāt, it is surprising how relatively little it affected the architecture of Māndū, which is not 200 miles distant. The reason is that, though Māndū was an ancient stronghold of the Paramāras and, like Dhār, a flourishing centre of Hindu power, there is no evidence of any vigorous school of architecture having existed there, not vigorous enough at any rate to force its character upon the monuments of the new comers. Temples and other buildings the Muhammadans found in abundance at both places and appropriated or despoiled for their own purposes. Craftsmen, too, there were in plenty whom they enrolled into their service and to whom they gave no little latitude in the working up of details. But in its main essentials the architecture which the Muslims evolved at Māndū was modelled on the architecture with which they had grown familiar at the Imperial capital. Many of their monuments reverted back a century to the virile style of the early Tughluqs, with its battering walls and narrow lofty archways; others favoured the later style of Fīrūz Shāh's reign; and others again were influenced by contemporary buildings of the Sayyid and Lodī kings. But though the Muslims turned to Delhi for their prototypes, this must not be taken to imply that their creations were the outcome of slavish copying or were lacking in originality. On the contrary, their monuments were truly living and full of purpose, as instinct with creative genius as the models themselves from which they took their inspiration. Part of their distinctiveness they owe no doubt to their impressive size and part to the remarkable beauty of their stone work which under the transforming effects of time and weather takes on exquisitely beautiful tints of pink and orange and amethyst; but in a large measure their distinctive character is due to peculiarities of construction and ornament, to the happy proportions of their component parts or to other more subtle refinements that do not readily admit of analysis.