Spencer 1

Morgan Spencer

Religion, Textiles, & Power

Professor Urmila Mohan

15 May 2019

Weaponizing Cosmopolitanism:

The Trojan Horse of the 17th Century Indian Sub-Continent

Hanging, 1 of 7 Pieces, ca. 1610-1620. Painted resist and mordants, dyed cotton, 108 1/4 x 37
3/4 in. (275 x 95.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Museum Expedition 1913-1914, Museum Collection
Fund, 14.719.2 (Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 14.719.2_SL1.jpg)

Correct categorization, and thus rationalization, of textiles is often difficult to determine

in the early modern studies of the Indian subcontinent. This identified problem can be

contributed to a variety of causes, but prominently to the instability of governance during

Mughal imperialism, the sparse written record of trade transactions in India, the catering of

desired aesthetics to different markets by producers, and the various cross-cultural interactions
 Spencer 2
between groups in the period. Thus, in order to rationalize and further analyze the collection of

wall hangings from the Coromandel coast circa 1610-1620 AD, “Hanging, 1-7 pieces”

(Accession 14.719.1-7), (Fig. 4), located at the Brooklyn Museum in New York, a contextual

historical framework is necessary.

The Indian subcontinent in the late 16th century and beginning of the 17th century,

consisted of loosely drawn boundaries between the Mughal, Vijayanagara, and Deccani empires

(Fig. 1). The southernmost region, Vijayanagara, was constructed as a Hindu state, in the early

days dedicated to “defending south india from the advancing tide of Islam,” (Moin 5). Thus, it

was quite opposite to its Deccan counterpart, a primarily Islamic territory stretching across the

midsection of the subcontinent. The Deccan sultanates had four different states of rulers,

Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, Bidar, and Golconda. However, for the purpose of this paper I will focus

on the Deccan sultanates of Golconda because of their rule over the Coromandel coast and

diamond mines in the area.

The Deccan sultanate “astonished European travelers…in the Western imagination,

“Golconda,” in particular, became synonymous with fabulous wealth,” particularly for their

control over diamond mines in the east. In fact, the Deccan was even given credit for supplying

the Vijayanagara empire with their famous “precious stones of Vijayanagara,” (Saletore 114).

The Qutb Shah sultanate of Golconda (1518-1687) had control of roughly 30 mines, which

contained the “finest, colorless, flawless, type II A diamonds with exceptional optimal

transparency,” (Stronge V&A). In 1677 Henry Howard, an English nobleman who traveled

extensively in India, claimed that “diamonds from the Deccan were sufficient to furnish the

entire world,” (​ibid​). While religious differences set the boundaries between the​ ​Vijayanagara
 Spencer 3
and the Deccan, more recent investigation has led scholars to believe that “an exceptional

amount of culture - ideas and modes of governance, courtly etiquette, architecture, sartorial

habits, etc. - freely trafficked between the two states, as did thousands of opportunistic

mercenaries and even high-ranking nobles,” (Moin 5). Both aesthetic analysis of objects during

this time and trade between the two states can also prove this cross-cultural amalgam.

However, the cross-cultural interactions were not limited to solely Vijayanagara and the

Deccan. Adding to this cultural melting pot (Moin 9):

were the many overseas influences that penetrated the early modern Deccan…In
the sixteenth century, Portuguese conquistadors and merchants reached the Deccan’s
west coast, and after wrestling the port of Goa from Bijapur in 1510, engaged with the
Deccan’s inland kingdoms as merchants, as soldier-mercenaries, and as Jesuit priests.
Soon thereafter English and Dutch merchants would reach both coasts, initially in a
commercial capacity only.
The introduction of the European merchants from the various East India Companies to the

Deccan and Vijayanagara empires was crucial in establishing new trade routes with the West.

Initially, the Portuguese brought with them spices, and traded at ports such as Masulipatnam

(Deccan) and St. Thome (Vijayanagara). However, the establishment of St. Thome, a Portuguese

settlement on Vijayanagara territory along the coast of Andhra Pradesh, did not initially go over

well with the Vijayanagara viceroy, Rama Raya (1617-1632 CE). Raya attempted to compete by

erecting a fort near the Portuguese stronghold in 1615, and the Portuguese captain Manoel de

Frias ultimately captured it along with the cannon inside of it (Saletore 123). This is just one

example of the somewhat hostile relationship between the European merchants and the

Vijayanagara empire.

Yet, no such hostilities during this time existed in the Deccan region of Golconda

because of the realized need for support of the relatively new empire under the Qutb Shah
 Spencer 4
Sultanates. Because of the sultanate’s newness, previous historical hostilities with the

Vijayanagar empire, and association with Mughal imperialism through Islam, the celebration of

cultural diversity was important in legitimizing the empire through support. For example, a

demand in the Deccan for administrators, soldiers, artists, and literati “steeped in the prestigious

Persian culture that the central asian conqueror [Timur]1 had so lavishly patronized,” (Moin 4).

Further, a stream of westerners from Arab and Persian worlds were attracted by the offer of

status in high positions and came to the Deccani courts. Lastly, because of the lack of relations

with north India since 1347, the Deccani sultanates had to recruit “military and civil talent to run

their kingdom…[resulting in] the influx of so many Persian-speaking Westerners virtual[ly]

transform[ing] the kingdom into a settler’s colony,” (Moin 4). From 1565 to the 1680s, this

region saw something of a golden age, as peace and prosperity reigned. However, importantly

noted by A. Azfar Moin in his book ​Sultans of the South ​(Moin 7):

It was not just the peace and prosperity that fostered the burst of distinctive
artistic traditions in the principal courts of sixteenth and seventeenth century Deccan.
Equally important was the cosmopolitan character of those courts, in turn a function of
the Deccan’s cultural and ethnic diversity. This diversity is especially apparent when
juxtaposed with the more homogenous culture of the imperial Mughals…
Most important in this description is the last line: the mention of the homogenous “imperial

Mughals” in comparison to the cosmopolitanism displayed by the Deccani sultanates. The idea

of cosmopolitanism in this regard is the idea of respectful coexistence of seemingly differing

ideas and different states of engagement with the material world, (Sengupta 2017). Haiat and

Sardar are not alone in their perception of the homogeneity of the Mughals, despite

“self-proclaimed cosmopolitanism and ecumenism,” for primary reports also detail their aversion

to diversity (Lefèvre 1). For example, in a recorded conversation between the Mughal officers

1
Timur (1336-1405), Ancestor of Babur (1483-1530) founder of Mughal empire.
 Spencer 5
and Prince Murad, the son of emperor Akbar (1556-1605), in Ahmednagar, one Mughal officer

“exploded in rage. ‘What nonsense is this?’” he exclaimed of Deccani cosmopolitanism (Moin

7). Then, noting the prince’s and Akbar’s “noble” descent from Timur, he angrily contrasted the

Mughal dynasty with the “motley collection of peoples defending Ahmednagar’s fort, whom he

contemptuously dismissed as ‘crows and kites of the Deccan, who squat like ants or locusts over

a few spiders,’” (​ibid​).

The inclination towards imperialism, and self-positioned superiority, led to the Mughal

expansion campaigns entering the Deccan Sultanate and the Vijayanagara regions under Akbar

in the mid-1570s. At the turn of the 16th century, the Deccani sultanates had a stronghold on the

production and trade centers along the Coromandel coast: a prize that the Mughals had been

staking out. Further, of the three dominating empires, the Mughal Empire was one of the most

opulent in conspicuous display of jeweled decoration from depictions in art of the era, despite

not owning the precious Deccani diamond mines (Fig.3). Thus, in order to effectively campaign

the expansion of the Mughal empire, and successfully overtake the Golconda region for the

access to the Coromandel coast and diamond mines, I hypothesize that the Mughal empire

intentionally propagandized “cosmopolitanism” as a form of soft power prevalent in the art and

artifacts of the early seventeenth century. The Brooklyn Museum wall hanging, “Hanging, 1-7

pieces” (Accession 14.719.2), (Fig. 4), is a primary example of this phenomenon.

 Spencer 6
Detangling History

Beginning with the macro level of the piece, the ​kalamkari2 ​wall hanging “Hanging, 1-7

pieces,” (circa 1605-1650) is the epitome of seventeenth century Mughal ‘multiculturalism.’ The

hangings were not just for a royal private collection, but most likely commissioned in

Masulipatnam (Machilipatnam)3 for display as tent hangings, or ​qanats​, typical of the time used

during royal hunting trips, visiting faraway palaces, and gauging support for the empire through

cross-cultural interactions (Fig. 4). Each of the seven panels, originally one large piece, has a

distinct cultural group, identified by aesthetic style and trade relations: (1) Persians, perhaps

Deccani Sultans (2) Europeans, perhaps Portuguese4 (3) Southeast Asian, perhaps Thai or

Siamese (4) rural communities in the midsection of India, perhaps the Adivasi (5) the Indonesian

islanders, perhaps Malay or Javanese (6) the so-called “locals,” (Cummins) most similar in

aesthetic to the Vijayanagara Hindus (7) Either East African (Cummins), or Persian/Turkoman

​ all
with European influence in women’s garments (Gwatkin 93). The purpose of the ​kalamkari w

hangings, while only postulated in historical research due to the lack of empirical evidence, had

to have been originally for a patron that must have been a ruler, “who could attract a powerful

cosmopolitan group to his court,” (Gwatkin 91). This conclusion can be made because at the

time panels were not usually designed for more than just ornamental purposes (Gwatkin 92).

However, in adjusting Gwatkin’s statement, my research indicates that perhaps the ​kalamkari

was made to “perform” the air of Deccani cosmopolitanism in order to facilitate non-military

2
​Kalamkari ​is a technique in which cotton textiles are painted on with a pen called a ​kalam, t​ hen dyed using mordants and dried repeatedly to achieve the desired
aesthetic. ​Kalamkari​ was a particular popular craft during the 17th century, and in the late century became one of the most popular Indian exports.

3
​Assertion evidenced later in essay.

4
​Potentially Portuguese, Dutch, or English. Dr. Joan Cummins of the Brooklyn Museum stated that historians are still unsure of the nationality of this group. The
interaction between the Mughals and Portuguese, Dutch, or English traders all could all explain the depiction. Perhaps one could consider these as a ‘type’, i.e.
Europeans.
 Spencer 7
imperialism through the expansion campaigns of the Mughal empire. The Mughals were

particularly interested in the wealth of the Eastern Deccan plateau through the diamond mines,

production scale, and global network of trade. Thus, commissioning such a piece would be

representative of either the desire for, or the potential success of, the defeat of the Deccani

Sultanates. While I must condition this statement with the fact that no authority figures have

commented directly on this particular connection to this piece, the evidence of similar Mughal

non-military imperial action such as intercultural marriage and political campaigns, the evolution

of Mughal “sacred kingship” (Lefèvre 256), the amalgam of Deccani and Mughal style despite

conflict, and the corroborated chance the piece came from a Rajasthani royal collection proves

an uncanny historical connection.

An Early Campaign Trail

The Mughal “inferiority complex”5 is crucial to understanding the literature, expansion

campaigns, and arts, and particularly crucial in analyzing the Brooklyn Museum’s “Hanging, 1-7

pieces.” The ​kalamkari ​was estimated to have been created between 1605-1650, just after the

death of Akbar, during the reign Jahāngīr (1569-1627) (translated as “conqueror of the world”)

and grandson Shah Jahan (1592-1666). Prior to his death, Akbar had begun entering into a

“series of [non-military] alliances with numerous Rajput ruling houses, arranging marriages with

Rajput princesses for himself and his heirs,” (Britannica, Rajasthan). Moreover, Akbar perhaps

recognized the political power of portraying cosmopolitanism even before his son; Jahāngīr, born

of a Rajput mother, married Jodha Bai, granddaughter of Raja Askaran of Gwalior (briefly the

king of the Amber Palace in 1599 before being ousted by another family member). Thus, Akbar

5
​Term used in Lefèvre 265
 Spencer 8
was literally, and figuratively, married to the Amber Palace. The importance of this fact assists in

potentially corroborating how the kalamkari ended up in the Amber Palace of Jaipur, before

being sold to Stewart Culin, by local dealer Imre Schwaiger, of the Brooklyn Museum in 1914.

According to Rahul Jain in his book, Textiles & Garments at the Jaipur Court, the kalamkari is

“connected to the Amber ​farrashkhana​ via their inventory inscriptions or their art market

provenance,” (Jain 39)6. Thus, the geographic connection of the ​kalamkari​ to the Rajasthani

Amber Palace would logically follow in exacting a Mughal emperor as the commissioner. The

marriages between the Mughal and Rajput could also explain the Persian influence in Mughal

design between the 16th and 17th centuries.

While Akbar saw visual power through the construction of cities​ t​ o “materially express

the worldview that he was actively creating,” (Sinopoli 299), Jahāngīr utilized the arts to convey

his strength. Although previously his brother, Prince Murad, had criticized cosmopolitanism of

the Deccani, Jahāngīr saw the power in building the concept of cosmopolitanism in his court by

including “ambassadors, poets, and dignitaries who had recently arrived from Iran and Central

Asia, as well as a range of religious specialists, from Brahmins and Muslim ʿulamāʾ to Jesuit and

Jewish scholars,” in his night-sessions of discussion (Lefèvre 259)7. Jahāngīr, was perhaps, the

first of the Mughals to recognize the power that friendly multicultural alliances with Iran, Central

Asia, and Hindustan had in “the will to assert their power on a Eurasian scale,” (Lefèvre 256).

6
​Stewart Culin, in his account of the​ kalamkari,​ is quoted, “one reaches this place, called Amber, by giving due notice to the Resident, on elephants secured from the
Maharaja’s stables. I have no evidence but I am fully convinced that all the precious things I bought from the Mohammedan dealer at Jeypore, as well as the curtains
and many of the other objects I secured from Schweiger, were looted from this place of mystery and enchantment,” (Jain 42).
7
​In her article, “The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī (1608-11): Dialogue and Asiatic Otherness at the Mughal Court,” Corinne Lefèvre uses primary evidence from night-time
sessions presided over by Emperor Jahāngīr from 1608-1611 to support her conclusion that these sessions “open a new window into the mental representations and
hierarchies that underlay the much celebrated Mughal cosmopolitanism,” (Lefèvre 3).
 Spencer 9
Thus, in order to foster alliances, Jahāngīr molded the Mughal aesthetic to include references to

which any person of India could relate.

These symbolic references were not only fostered within the Agra Fort of Uttar Pradesh,

but also created by the mobility of the royal courts with lavish tented camps, as seen in the

miniature by Mir Sayyid Ali (1540), (Fig. 5). Jahāngīr is even said to have been absent from

Agra for a total of 14 years of his 22-year rule, proving the extent to which he valued, or rather

was interested in, inter-cultural relations (Sinopoli 295). Similar use of the tented tapestries as

the ​kalamkari​ can be seen in Balchand’s depiction of Jahāngīr receiving a prince after he was

traveling to campaign for the emperor (Fig. 6). However, one of the most important pieces in

identifying the Brooklyn​ kalamkari ​as a part of the Mughal empire’s imperialism, is a strikingly

similar ​kalamkari qanat​ found in the New Delhi Museum, “Qanat with Five Niche Panels”

(Accession 48.7/29) (Fig. 7).

Aesthetic Positioning

In the late 16th century, Mughal officials began to see the sea as “both a source of

revenue and of novelties, owning ships and investing in trade operations within the wide network

that stretched from the Red Sea to insular Southeast Asia,” (Flores 21). Thus, the Mughals began

to invest in, and trade with, artisans in port cities along the Coromandel Coast. Particularly, in

Masulipatam because of the ease of access for the Mughals in the North and the rarity in the skill

of textile artisans there. Of the expensive painted ​kalamkari,​ “the best, and rarest, came from

Golconda - from where supply was further limited by demands imposed upon the Mughal and

Deccani courts,” (Lally 31). The port city near Golconda, Masulipatnam, was located on a river

ideal for the production of the ​kalamkari d​ ue to the dyeing process requiring fresh water (von
 Spencer 10
Wyss-Giacosa​ 3​ 8). The ​kalamkari​ produced at Masulipatnam enjoyed better patronage because

of the “​chay”​ red used opposed to the “​al”​ used in Gujarat (Akurathi 38). This “chay” red can be

seen in “Coverlet, Golconda region,” (Accession 48.7/103) (Fig. 8) and shows a remarkable

similarity, at least in photographic evidence, to the red of the “Qanat with Five Niche Panels”

(Accession 48.7/29) (Fig. 7), both of which were assumed to have been made in Golconda during

the same time as Brooklyn Museum’s “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.” While the red is faded in

“Hanging, 1-7 pieces,” the palette is almost an exact match to the “Qanat with Five Niche

Panels,” without retouching for print purposes (Fig. 7). Intriguingly, the​ “​ Coverlet, Golconda

region” (Fig. 8)8 depicts a Deccani king, relaxing in his palace surrounded by figures identified

to be from Armenia, the Mughal Kingdom, China, and Turkey (New Delhi Museum Archive).

Thus, a visual reminder put forth by the Deccan artisans shows the alliances of the Qutb Shahi

Sultans through the figures immersed in Deccani cosmopolitanism. To solidify the assertion that

the artisans just outside of Golconda were the creators, one need not look further than the fortress

the Mughals would later capture in 1636. The Palace Wall at Golconda during the 17th century is

remarkably similar to the architectural design of the ​kalamkari ​“Hanging, 1-7 pieces,” showing

an arrangement of arched niches within a larger niche (Fig. 7, Below). The smaller niches in the

“Hanging, 1-7 pieces,” are used to demarcate the private sphere, a thought to which I will later

return. The curvature of the niches even ties back around to the “Qanat with Five Niche Panels,”

(Fig. 7).

8
​See Appendix of Figures
 Spencer 11

Fig. 7, (Left) “Qanat with Five Niche Panels,”in Moin p. 276 (Right) “Qanat with Five Niche
Panels,” (New Delhi Museum Archive)

Fig. 9, (Left) The Palace Wall at Golconda juxtaposed to (Right) Panel 2 of the “Hanging, 1-7
Pieces.”
To qualify that the artisans did not unintentionally mix cultural aesthetics at the time, it is

important to understand that the Masulipatnam artisans knew their markets well. Master dyers

understood the cultural complexities at the time and “prepared canopies with the appropriate

mythological designs for their Hindu clients, prayer carpets for the Muslims, tent-lining cloths

with cypress-motif or floral designs, which were held in high esteem by the Persian rulers, and

finally yardage and hangings of chintz for the Western market,” (Dallapiccola 14). While the
 Spencer 12
dyers were familiar with an array of cultural aesthetics, they understood too the symbols

denoting cultural distinction. However, the ​kalamkari​ “Hanging, 1-7 pieces” defies rigid

singularity. It pulls Deccani Cosmopolitanism, Hindu ritual, and even European trade relations

into a melting pot symbolic of Mughal desire of all-encompassing domination. Even the possible

production of the ​qanat​ in Masulipatnam indicates the Mughal’s keen interest in Golconda,

coinciding with the attacks led throughout the seventeenth century and ultimately ending in Shah

Jahan conquering the area in 1636.9

Body as Empire

By the 16th century “cultural cross-dressing” was common among the Indic, Persianate,

and Turkish as “the negotiated product of circulation, both of representations and their signifying

potential, ‘firmly embedded in relations of production and trade, of circulation and imagery,”

(Flood 72). Particularly, elite garments “created transcultural sartorial connections between

Hindu and Muslim elites” that were “not just regional but also hierarchical,” (Houghteling 92).

Better stated as a term, in my opinion, cross-cultural dressing distinguishes a subject through an

“alternate cultural identity; as a consequence, it is often characterized by a simultaneous

assertion and disavowal of alterity,” (Flood 72). This practice was common among medieval

elites, similar to “code switching studied by modern linguists,” (Flood 72). The importance of

this cross-cultural dressing lies in the “conferral of status that this implies,” (Flood 75). For

example, Arab and Persian visitors often distinguished the legitimacy of leadership by their

appearance, “affording higher status to those who had adopted Islamicate modes of dress,” (​Ibid)​

perhaps because of the Mughal “inferiority complex.” Proposing that the ​kalamkari​ is

9
​According to Ring, Watson, and Schellinger in Asia and Oceania: International Dictionary of Historic Places, “Shah Jahan had an affection for Golconda based
upon his having taken refuge there while in rebellion against his father Jahangir, in 1622,” (Ring 291).
 Spencer 13
representative of cross-cultural dressing is a large assumption, but considering the ​kalamkari​ was

certainly meant depict Mughal cosmopolitanism, and the Mughal emperors were prone to

cross-cultural dress in order to garner imperial support, I believe it could be possible. For Akbar

and Jahāngīr “collected and gifted Bengali cotton cloth, Rajasthani tie-dyed sashes, and Kashmiri

pashmina shawls, and adopted into their courtly vocabularies the multilayered meanings that

cloth could hold,” (Houghteling 93). Even evidence from the Jahāngīrnāma suggests that

Jahāngīr was “deliberate about the symbolic meaning of his garment choices, and kept detailed

accounts of his daily clothing ensembles,” (Houghteling 100). Thus, the Mughals recognized,

and imitated the “subtle political constituencies,” (Houghteling 93) that dress highlighted,

particularly because of the inseparability of textile production, economic stability, and political

legitimacy. This “prestigious imitation” is like “camouflage, not a harmonization of repression of

difference, but a form of resemblance, that differs from or defends presence by displaying it in

part, metonymically...in order to be effective, mimicry must constantly produce its slippage, its

excess, its difference,” (Flood 75). In part, I believe that this “Mughal mimicry” of different

cultural dress could be responsible for the lack of ability for the Brooklyn Museum to classify the

exact cultural groups, for each are similar but not entirely correct in encompassing stereotypical

cultural characteristics. Jahāngīr, in particular, was known to, unorthodoxly, “patronize clothing

styles that were incompatible with the prevailing concepts of luxury at international early

modern courts,” (Houghteling 105). However, Jahāngīr “did not think of himself as patronizing

local inferior items,” rather, “he luxuriated in their possibilities,” (Houghteling 111). Thus, I

propose that by borrowing Hindu aesthetics and placing them on the body of the emperors in

panel (6) of the ​kalamkari,​ the Mughal emperors attempted to reposition their empire through
 Spencer 14
manipulation of the material environment and semiotic codes. Ultimately, depicting the

multidimensional aspect Mughal cosmopolitanism.

Early in Akbar’s reign, he adopted a “harsh line toward Hindu and other

non-monotheistic subjects...but, ultimately “recognized that since Hindus outnumbered Muslims,

he had to devise a different strategy,” (Natif 27). Thus, Akbar adopted relaxed policies toward

religious difference. While some argue the sponsorship of the translation of Sanskrit works, such

as the ​Mahabharata​ and the ​Ramayana​ reflected the dynasty’s liberal views in religious matters,

“Carl Ernst has called attention to the primary ‘political significance’ of the process,” (Lefèvre

276). The dispersion of the texts allowed for the the Mughals to “gain knowledge of those social

practices in order to regulate them, and, if necessary, to act as an arbiter,” (Lefèvre 277). Often in

arbitration, however, appropriation of belief and ritual assisted in “the business of kingship,”

(Lefèvre 277). Indeed, it did, for after Akbar’s studies of the ​Mahābhārata​ and ​Rāmāyaṇa epics,

Akbar proposed the idea that the emperor was the true embodiment of the empire in “divine

​ as that of an emperor who was “the first among the Mughals to inherit ‘a
kingship.” Jahāngīr​ w

fully functioning system of sacred kingship,’ as well as a claim to religious leadership over both

Shiʿis and Sunnis,” (Lefèvre 266). Thus, Jahāngīr embraced multicultural dialogue as “a

powerful didactic tool that aimed to convince his interlocutors of his superiority, both temporal

and spiritual,” (Lefèvre 262).

The style, symbols, body language, and dress of panel (6) of the ​kalamkari​ are that of the

Vijayanagara Hindus. But, the Mughals, in “divine kingship” could have potentially asserted

their cosmopolitanism not only through inclusion, but through cross-cultural dressing. To break

this evidence down, it is important to juxtapose ​kalamkari​ temple hangings of the Vijayanagara
 Spencer 15
empire collected at the V&A Museum with sections of panel (6). Further, under my assumption

of cross-cultural dressing, first it is necessary to position the figures in the prayer positions as

perhaps the succession of “divine” emperors: Akbar, Jahāngīr, and on top Shah Jahan. This

hierarchy, discussed later, could be representative of “threat” that both Akbar and Jahāngīr posed

to the Deccan, but the final victory of Shah Jahan in conquering the Deccan. The following

depictions support this claim.

The ability for fashion to “make the body culturally visible,” allows an analysis of the

clothes in the ​kalamkari​ to corroborate this assumption (Flood 61). In “Shah Jahan and His Son

Toy With Jewels,” (Fig. 10), a miniature portrait done of the emperor, the emperor displays his

wealth, while signifying the importance of jewels to the Mughal empire. Even the positioning of

the emperor is extremely similar in gesture and garment.

Fig. 10 (Left) “Shah Jahan and His Son Toy With Jewels,” ca. 1620.​ ​(Right)​ P
​ anel 6 of the
“Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.”

However, the most important signifier of the Mughals is the “​malmal”​ cotton depicted, originally

valued in Akbar’s closet as a “cloth-of-gold,” (Houghteling 97). In ​malmal,​ the earthly body of

the king was put at ease in hot temperatures while simultaneously allowing the divine body to
 Spencer 16
“radiate through the cloth and permitted the king’s perfumed sweat to visibly permeate the

fabric,” (Houghteling 98). In the ​kalamkari,​ the spiritual value of the cotton is shown by

intentionally allowing the cotton canvas of the ​kalamkari​ to dress the emperors.

Considering where the emperors of the scene are placed, the Brooklyn ​kalamkari c​ omes

to life through cultural comparisons. The ​kalamkari​ “The Killing of Shishupala 5459,” is a scene

from the ​Mahābhārata​ written in the 8th century (CE). While the actual ​kalamkari ​was created

later (19​th​ c.) than the Brooklyn wall hanging, the visual similarities are apparent in the

horizontal format of the storytelling. The narrative of “The Killing of Shishupala 5459,” begins

with the “invitation and the arrival of Krishna at the court of Pandavas, culminates with the

killing of Shishupala, and ends with the completion of Dharmaraja’s coronation, followed by the

distribution of gifts to the Brahmins and Krishna’s return to Dvarka,” (read top to bottom in Fig.

11) (Dallapiccola 125). In order to represent the conflict between Krishna and Shishupala, the

artist utilizes the gesture of the Vitarka Mudra, or that of intellectual disagreements between the

opposing groups. Similarly, in panel 6 on the right of Figure 11, the Mughal leader uses an

extended index finger, Tarjani Mudra, or the sign of threat, or warning, to gesturally comment on

the threat of Mughal expansion. Importantly, this Mughal leader sits on the middle tier of the

storyline, perhaps representing what is to come in the ultimate Mughal siege. That “threat,” is

ultimately realized at the top scene of the Brooklyn ​kalamkari​ in the scene depicting the figure

that I hypothesize to being Shah Jahan gifting jewels to, possibly, Deccani women. Evidence that

the women are Deccani can be seen in the visual similarities of dress between the “Hanging,

India. Deccan, ca. 1640-50,” from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Accession 20.79) (Fig. 12).
 Spencer 17

Fig. 11 (Left) Section of “The Killing of Shishupala 5459 (IS),” 19th century. (Dallapiccola
p.125). (Right) Panel 6 of the “Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.”

Fig. 12 (Left) Panel (6) of “Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.” (Right) a section of “Hanging, India. Deccan,
ca. 1640-50,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Accession 20.79).
 Spencer 18
This particular hanging even shows almost identical wrapping techniques in the dress of the

women.10 However, the gifting in comparison to the Hindu ​dana ​in “The Killing of Shishupala

5459,” (Dallapiccola 125) is perhaps a reflection of acceptance from Mughal’s new dominion.

For, the receiving of gifts is the acknowledgement of entering into a contractual obligation of

reciprocity, in this case the Deccani women’s acceptance of the Mughal rule (Mauss 11).

Further, from the divine king, it represents a part of his divinity passed on to his new courtesans.

While entirely possible that this depiction is merely that of the Vijayanagara rulers, and still

could be representative of the Mughal asserting of cosmopolitanism, the aesthetic similarities of

Shah Jahan’s dress and positioning in “Shah Jahan and His Son Toy With Jewels,” (Fig. 10)

leaves me with many questions.

Returning, once again, to the “Qanat with Five Niche Panels,” (Fig. 7), Hindu mythology

does the job of unpacking the cultural significance of the ​kalamkari​ “Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.” as a

Mughal commission. Hindu ​Gandaberunda,​ or ​Berunda,​ a two-headed mythological bird

believed to possess immense magical strength, is depicted in the central panel. However, the bird

is swooping down instead of soaring upwards to the sky, which the New Delhi Museum

identifies as “perhaps…an ironic version made for the succeeding dynasties,” or Mughals (New

Delhi Museum Archive). It is likely that the ​kalamkari​ “Hanging, 1-7 pieces” could have been

used in the same manner, as political tool of emulating cosmopolitanism and religious

acceptance through bodily vestiment for recognition, but asserting the true strength in the

ownership of the ideology.

Nina ​Gwatkin also argues that these women show parallels to Vijayanagar mural paintings, such as in the Lepakshi
10

Murals. (Gwatkin 1982).

 Spencer 19
Portuguese “Other”ing

Similar to the Hindu inspired panel, perhaps panel (6), in line with my previous

hypothesis of Mughal embodiment, could be a Mughal group dressed as Europeans. Jahāngīr

“maintained mostly friendly relations with missionaries from the Society of Jesus, and showed

an interest in European painting and artifacts, as part of a global vision for his realm,” (Natif 34).

He expressed a desire to include the migrated Europeans into his cosmopolitan court. Yet,

underlying intentions of Mughal proximity and tolerance to the Europeans were best described

under Akbar in his ​Akbarnama​ reports during the siege of Surat in 1573, when a large number of

Portuguese Christians presented themselves to Akbar. The reports state the following about the

firangīs, o​ r Europeans (Natif 37, ​Akbarnama​ 3:37):

They produced many of the rarities of their country, and the appreciative Khedive
[Akbar] received each one of them with special favour and made inquiries about the
wonders of Portugal and the manners and customs of Europe…. [The emperor] “did this
from a desire of knowledge, for his sacred heart is a depȏt of spiritual and physical
science. But his [Akbar’s] boding soul wished that these inquiries might be the means to
civilising (istīnās, i.e. familiarity or sociability) this savage race.
Thus, the Mughal acceptance and tolerance came with the desire to dominate their imposing

differences, perhaps through mimicry. According to Tahir Muhammed, a courtier in Akbar’s

service, the Mughals saw Europeans as “unclean people, reluctant to use water, especially with

respect to bodily functions,” (Natif 39) which was in direct conflict with the Mughal’s careful

bodily preservation due to its divinity in kingship. Yet, Muhammed recognized “they like to

wear elegant clothes,” (​ibid)​ . And, most importantly for my conjecture, one Portuguese priest,

Father Monserrate, participated in the first mission to Akbar and described the emperor’s

donning of Portuguese dress (​Commentary of Father Monserrate​, 28):

He took them to another courtyard called the Daulatqhana, where he seized the
opportunity presented by a sudden rain-storm and put on Portuguese dress - a scarlet
cloak with gold fastenings.
 Spencer 20
According to Monserrate, Akbar used to don Portuguese dress on suitable occasions. He put it on

for the first time probably in the course of his negotiations with the Portuguese through Antonia

Cabral in 1573.11

No infallible conclusion has been drawn in research about whether the European panel

(2) is actually the Portuguese due to discrepancies of dress identification, which, perhaps, the

“slippage” inherent in mimicry can explain. The Portuguese colonies on both the eastern and

western Deccan could be seen as motivation for the Mughals to assert superiority over the group,

while maintaining an hesitant congeniality. Along with the informal private merchants all along

the Indian coastlines, the Portuguese had established a formal colony in the Western city of Goa.

To even further complicate relations, the Portuguese had mutually beneficial alliance with the

Qutb Shahi Sultans of Golconda in 1590. The trade between the two groups most likely stemmed

from Portuguese anxiety prompting them to “ward off what they saw (quite correctly) as an

imminent threat - the southward expansion of the Mughal empire,” (Subrahmanyam 128). Thus,

to the Mughals, Portuguese represented another threat to imperialism into the Deccan. This

Portuguese-Qutb Shahi alliance, perhaps the only recorded of its kind so early in time, and

Father Monserrate’s primary reports could position the Portuguese as the Europeans in panel (2)

of the ​kalamkari.​ And, cultural cross-dressing by the Mughals could perhaps account for the

discrepancies, or impurity, of the Portuguese dress in the​ kalamkari.​ This particular theory is a

public display of cosmopolitanism, yet control through satire.

Visual representations of the Portuguese military uniforms have been prevalently

exaggerated in other Asian artwork of the time, such as the Japanese silk screen paintings of the

11
​Commentary of Father Monserrate,​ 28
 Spencer 21
early 1600s, “Nanban” (Fig. 13). Particularly, the multi-colored bloomer uniform pants (Fig. 15)

​ ere often described as hat-wearers or ​kulah-poshān ​(Natif 39).

and hats, for the ​firangīs w

Identifying the figures as Mughals in Portuguese dress could potentially tell much about the

Mughal-Portuguese relations through the sartorial exaggeration in the ​kalamkari.​ However,

subtle satirical distinctions can be made in the Portuguese representation other than the

adornment of their bodies as identification. Two particular details can perhaps substantiate the

information about the desire to “civilize” the Portuguese in the ​Akbarnama​ report.

Fig. 15 (Left) Image found online, source unknown.12 (Right) Panel 2 of “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.”

12
​However, style corroborated by miniature painting in Fig. 13 and 14 on the list of Figures.
 Spencer 22
First, in comparing and contrasting all seven panels, the private sphere beyond the niches

is peculiar in the Portuguese panel. Each of the other panels, except for the Portuguese, has a

hanging flower (Fig. 16), blossoming above the heads of figures. The meaning in this choice is

particularly Rajasthani, circling back to the Mughal’s matrimonial alliances with Rajasthan.

These flowers, a form of ​toran​ are meant to demarcate the a boundary between the mortal and

spiritual. They were particularly meant to “shield and deflect the evil eye, a malevolent force

widely believed to destroy the reproductive fertility and bring general misfortune,” (Rivers 81).

Thus, the private sphere in each panel’s windowed niches, ​except​ for the Portuguese, could

represent the Mughal’s recognition of each cultural group’s spirituality. In contrast, it also can

show the Mughal’s explicit refusal to accept Christianity as “savage” in the terms of the

Akbarnama.​

Fig. 16 (Left from bottom to top) Panels 5, 6, and 7 of “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.” (Right) Panel 2.
 Spencer 23
Second, the comparison of the Portuguese panel the the Mughal one is peculiar in

analyzing exchange practices. The ultimate gifting by Shah Jahan to the Deccani women (Fig.

12) is a ritualistic practice, performed by the king to meaningfully connect with his courtesans by

passing along his own divinity. The exchange depicted was not of commodities, but of the

promise of spirituality in return for political support. However, the Portuguese (Fig. 17) solely

relied on a transactional trade of commodity. Thus, the bottom right authority could represent the

Portuguese leader giving his people access to wealth through trade of commodities, and in return

wealth is given back to the authorities. This depiction is important in rationalizing that perhaps

while the Mughals imitated and displayed all cultures to exert power, they were seemingly most

critical of those the least similar or familiar to them.

Fig. 17 (Left) “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.” (Right) Panel 2.

 Spencer 24
Diamonds & Desire: The Final Connection

But, what was it that the Mughal leader was “divinely” gifting in Vijayanagara garb? Of

what were the Mughals highlighting the Portuguese to be commodifying? Dr. Joan Cummins of

the Brooklyn Museum postulated, based on her research, that it was in fact the Golconda

diamonds so desired in the Deccan region. Susan Stronge, the senior curator at the Victoria &

Albert Museum, quoted explorer Henry Howard (1677) in her talk at the Nauras exhibit at the

New Delhi, stating “diamonds from the Deccan were sufficient to furnish the world.” In the same

speech, Stronge ties the Portuguese trade of the diamonds up until the 1720s. She also confirms

that the Qutb Shahi sultans of the Deccan supplied the Mughal court with diamonds, which was

crucial to their wealthy image, gifting practices, and likely the reason for their attempts to

overtake the region. Stronge even accounts one particular ritual of Jahāngīr, in which he was

“covered with so many precious stones, he looked like an idol, and he had more than all of the

other world powers.” The cycle of nationalism and imperialism, combined with the divinity

attached to diamonds as ritual objects, characterizes the final Deccan connection: desire. It also

confirms the calculated intent of Mughal cosmopolitanism, as underlying motives weaponize it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my research has proven the necessity to carbon-date the item in order to

unpack the cultural complexities of the time. The 1605 to 1650 time period is too vast to make a

generalized hypothesis. For, different individual rulers have different political values and means

of displaying those values. However, if the ​kalamkari​ was made between 1605-1627, under

Jahāngīr, the ​kalamkari ​perhaps represented the desire to garner support from other cultures for

the Mughal empire in the South through non-military alliances and his hopes of victory in the
 Spencer 25
Deccan. Thus, proving that the ideology of cosmopolitanism became an imperial weapon.

​ as commissioned under Shah

However, there exists the another possibility that the ​kalamkari w

Jahan after the encroachment on Golconda territory in the Deccan in 1632 . Thus, the

cosmopolitanism depicted could then represent the Mughal victory over the Deccani diamonds,

and the characterizations of cultural groups, in an attempt to assert imperial power in expansion.

Lastly, my proposed possibility of Mughal cross-cultural dressing in each panel to resolve the

discrepancies in the depictions of cultural groups in each panel and assert Mughal dominance by

overtly advertising their devotion to cosmopolitanism, while subtly critiquing other cultures

through the embodiment of the garments, could add another layer to the complexities of the

kalamkari.​ In either motive, or hypothesis, the Mughal “inferiority complex” of simultaneous

celebration and subtle contempt of cultural “others” is clear in the Brooklyn Museum’s ​qanat

kalamkari​ “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.”

 Spencer 26

Bibliography

Akurathi, V. Rao. The Kalamkari Industry of Masulipatam. Rao.s Books (Regd.), 2011.
Balabanlilar, Lisa. “The Emperor Jahangir and the Pursuit of Pleasure.” Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, vol. 19, no. 2, 2009, pp. 173–186. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/27756044.
Crill, Rosemary. ​The Fabric of India.​ V&A, 2015.
Cummins, Dr. Joan. Personal communication. LISA AND BERNARD SELZ SENIOR
CURATOR, ASIAN ART. 23 March 2019.
Dallapiccola, Anna L., and Rosemary Crill. Kalamkari Temple Hangings. Mapin Publishing,
2015.
Divakala, Malina and Dr. M. Vasantha.“​Kalamkari​ - the Painted Temple Cloths,” Presentation,
The Department of Fashion Design, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Andhra
Pradesh, India, 2016.
Fane, Diana, et al. “Stewart Culin as Collector.” ​Objects of Myth & Memory: American Indian
Art at the Brooklyn Museum,​ Oakland Museum, 1992, pp. 13–27.
Flood, Finbarr B. 2009. “Cultural Cross-dressing.” in Finbarr B. Flood Objects of Translation:
Material Culture and Medieval “Hindu-Muslim” Encounter. Publisher, 61-88; 282-286.
GIA, “Centuries of Opulence: Jewels of India.” Gemological Institute Of America,
www.gia.edu/jewels-of-india.
Gillow, John and Nicholas Barnard, ​Traditional Indian Textiles,​ London: Thames and Hudson,
1991.
Gwatkin, Nina. 1982. “The Brooklyn Museum Hanging” in Mattiebelle Gittinger, ​Master Dyers
to the World,​ Washington D.C: Textile Museum, 89-108.
Hanging, 1 of 7 Pieces, ca. 1610-1620. Painted resist and mordants, dyed cotton, 108 1/4 x 37
3/4 in. (275 x 95.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Museum Expedition 1913-1914, Museum
Collection Fund, 14.719.2 (Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 14.719.2_SL1.jpg)
Jain, Rahul. Textiles & Garments at the Jaipur Court. Niyogi Books, 2016.
Lally, Jagjeet, “The pattern of trade in seventeenth-century Mughal India: towards an
economic explanation.” Economic History Working Papers (120/09). Department of
Economic History, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 2009.
Lefèvre, Corinne, “The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī (1608-11): Dialogue and Asiatic Otherness at the
Mughal Court,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Volume 55:
Issue 2-3. 2012.
Mackie, Louise W. ​Symbols of Power: Luxury Textiles from Islamic Lands, 7th to 21st Century.​
 Spencer 27
The Cleveland Museum of Art, 2015.
Maloni, Ruby. “PORTUGUESE PRIVATE TRADERS ON THE COROMANDEL COAST (16
TH. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 73, 2012, pp. 311–317.,
www.jstor.org/stable/44156220.
Mauss, Marcel. The Gift: Forms And Functions Of Exchange In Archaic Societies. New York:
Norton, 1967. Print.
Moin, A. Azfar ​Sultans of the South: Arts of India’s Deccan Courts, 1323–1687​, ed. Navina
Najat Haidar and Marika Sardar, ​The English Historical Review,​ Volume 129, Issue 540,
October 2014, Pages 1190–1193, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/ceu248
“Nanban Trade, The Cultural Encounter | World Heritage of Portuguese Origin by
The Perfect Tourist.” Portugal Travel & Tourism E Magazine,
www.worldheritageofportugueseorigin.com/2015/07/31/nanban-trade-the-cultural-
encounter/.
Natif, Mika. "Mughal Tolerance and the Encounters with Europe". ​Mughal Occidentalism.​
Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004374997_003 Web.
National Museum, New Delhi. Accessed 18 April, 2019.
http://www.nationalmuseumindia.gov.in/exhibitions-nauras-the-many-arts.asp?lk=ex1
https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/national-museum-delhi
Pal, Indra, and Deryck O. Lodrick. “Rajasthan.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia
Britannica,Inc., 20 July 2018, www.britannica.com/place/Rajasthan.
Rivers, Victoria Z. (June 2014). "The torans of Gujarat and Rajasthan: meanings and origins.”
Marg, A Magazine of the Arts: 78–80.
Saletore, Dr. B.A, “Some Aspects of the Overseas Trade of Vijayanagara from the Accounts of
European Travellers,” in B.C. Law Commemoration Volume, ed. D.R. Bhandarkar,
Calcutta, 1945, p. 114-27.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam, ​The Political Economy of Commerce: Southern India 1500-1650,​
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Sengupta, Rajarshi “Many Gatherings: The Cosmopolitan World of a Golconda Coverlet,”
Journal18 (October 2017). 18 April 2019. ​http://www.journal18.org/2006
Stronge, Susan. Senior Curator, Victoria & Albert Museum, speech at “Nauras: The Many Arts
of the Deccan,” New Delhi, 2015.
Trudy Ring; Robert M. Salkin; Sharon La Boda (1995). Asia and Oceania: International
Dictionary of Historic Places. Taylor & Francis. pp. 912–. ISBN 978-1-884964-04-6.
Retrieved 19 April 2019.
unidentified artist/maker. “Portrait of a Portuguese gentleman.” early 17th century. Artstor,
library.artstor.org/asset/AMICO_BOSTON_103830167
von Wyss-Giacosa, Paola “Myth and Cloth from India: The Kalamkari Collection in the
Ethnographic Museum of the University of Zurich,” ​Narrative Culture,​ Vol. 5, No. 1
(Spring 2018), pp. 34-69
 Spencer 28

Figures

1. Figure 1:​ Map of the Mughal, Vijayanagara, and Deccani empires.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/mughal-empire-1550.htm

1. Figure 2:​ Jewel Mine Map, https://www.gia.edu/jewels-of-india

 Spencer 29

3. ​Figure 3: ​Calligrapher: Mir 'Ali; Painter: Nanha. Shah Jahan Album; Verso: Shah Jahan and
His Son Toy With Jewels; Recto: Leaf of Calligraphy, obverse. verso: ca. 1620.
Artstor,​library.artstor.org/asset/MMA_IAP_10310749093

4. ​Figure 4: ​Hanging, 1 of 7 Pieces, ca. 1610-1620. Painted resist and mordants, dyed cotton,
108 1/4 x 37 3/4 in. (275 x 95.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Museum Expedition 1913-1914,
Museum Collection Fund, 14.719.2 (Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 14.719.2_SL1.jpg)
 Spencer 30

5. ​Figure 5: ​Mir Sayyid Ali, Miniature from Layla and Majnun (c. 1540)

6.​ Figure 6: ​Balchand, Jahangir receives Prince Khurram on his return from the Mewar
campaign (19 February 1615) 1656-57
 Spencer 31

7. ​Figure 7: ​“Qanat with Five Niche Panels,” Moin p. 276

8.​ Figure 8: ​“Coverlet, Golconda region,” New Delhi Museum, Accession 48.7/103.
 Spencer 32

9. ​Figure 9: (Left) ​The Palace Wall at Golconda juxtaposed to ​(Right)​ Panel 1 of the “Hanging,
1-7 Pieces.”
 Spencer 33

10. ​Figure 10: (Left)​ “Shah Jahan and His Son Toy With Jewels,” ca. 1620.​ (​ Right)​ P
​ anel 7 of
the “Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.”

11. ​Figure 11: (Left) ​Section of “The Killing of Shishupala 5459 (IS),” 19th century.
(Dallapiccola p.125). ​(Right) ​Panel 7 of the “Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.”
 Spencer 34

12. ​Figure 12:​ ​(Left) ​Panel (7) of “Hanging, 1-7 Pieces.” ​(Right)​ a section of “Hanging, India.
Deccan, ca. 1640-50,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Accession 20.79).

13. ​Figure 13: ​“Nanban Trade, The Cultural Encounter | World Heritage of Portuguese Origin
by
The Perfect Tourist.” Portugal Travel & Tourism E Magazine,
www.worldheritageofportugueseorigin.com/2015/07/31/nanban-trade-the-cultural-
encounter/.
 Spencer 35

14. ​Figure 14: ​(Left) Image found online, source unknown. ​(Right)​ Panel 1 of “Hanging, 1-7
pieces.”

15. ​Figure 15: “​A Portuguese.” mid-17th century. Artstor,

library.artstor.org/asset/SS7731421_7731421_11634810
 Spencer 36

16. ​Figure 16: (Left from top to bottom)​ Panels 6, 7, and 5 of “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.” ​(Right)
Panel 1 of “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.”

17. ​Figure 17:​ Panel 1, “Hanging, 1-7 pieces.”

Spencer 37