INTRODUCTION OF SELF-PORTRAIT PAINTING IN INDIA

Author(s): S. P. Verma
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1977, Vol. 38 (1977), pp. 297-302
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44139084

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 297

INTRODUCTION OF SELF-PORTRAIT PAINTING IN INDIA

S. P. Verma

Self-portraiture is not a separate branch of painting. It is portrait

painting in all its essentials. However, a curious student of art may be
inclined to give it a separate treatment for two reasons. Unlike in port-
raiture the artist drawing his own likeness has to work on an unsteady
model, usually a mirror reflection. Secondly, in himself, he has for the
subject one with whom he is intimately familiar. A self-portrait is not
only the visible self, but also the inner self of the artist, a character. It
is the last feature that endows the creation with an additional charm.
Portraits are documents of personalities, characters and status which a
student of history can ill afford to bypass.
Unfortunately unlike the West, Indian painters do not seem to have
been much inclined to leave their images for posterity.1 In the ancient
times painting remained, by and large, a vehicle of devotional themes;
portrait painting and modelling received but scant attention.
In fact, the idea of portraiture was not entirely unknown in ancient
times. It came naturally with figure drawing. One might hesitate to
say with Percy Brown that it was "more in the minds of the people of
the East than it has ever been in the West".2 Literary evidences of
portrait painting are not wanting and go at least as far back as 300
A.D. In Abhigyan Shankuntlam of Kalidas (composed circa 300-400
A D.) we read of a visitor admiring the portrait of the drama's
heroine painted by the king.3 In the Chitralakshna of Nagnjit
(cir, 600-700 A.D.) the story narrates the circumstances of the
death of a brahman boy, whereupon Brahma resurrects him by infusing
life in his portrait.4 The story of Chitralekha, a character in Banbhatta's
Kadambari (cir. 600-700 A D.), painting the likeness of all the princes
of the time for her royal mistress Usha is well known.5 In his book
entitled Abhilasiartha Chintamani (1223-1138 A.D.), king Someshvara
discriminates between " Viddha " and " Aviddhď ' which are two types of
painting. Of these viddha is described as a "perfect portrait, a realistic
picture, looking verily like a reflection of the thing in a mirror".6 More
evidence may be cited to show the esteem in which the art of portrait
painting was held. Among the Indian sculptors portraiture in stone
(sculpture), too, had become a popular art by 200 B.C,7

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 298

In all probability self-portraiture was also practised in ancient

times. This may be surmised, once again, from numerous literary
evidences, our mainstay in the absence of any specific examples
available or cited. Thus, in Meghdut, Kalidas makes a male character
(Love) to address his angered beloved in the following words :8

spïïït jPrerí stt§tîïï: fwRr*Trč*rR ã ^nrqrfčtá i

"Whenever, in order to please you, I attempt to portray you in an

unpleasant mood on a stone slab with geru (Indian red), and myself as
lying at your feet (begging pardon) tears well up in my eyes so that tearful
eyes are disabled to see. Cruel time cannot bear our meeting even in
the picture".
In Chitralakshna, Nagnjit narrates the legend of the creation of Indra,
Mahadeva, Vishnu, etc. We are told how through the powers bestowed
on them by Brahma, they grew into well proportioned bodies and then
painted their own figures.9
It would not be stretching the argument to presume on the basis of
this evidence that ancient Indian painters did paint likenesses of others
and of themselves. However, the earliest available specimens of self-
portraiture are those that belong to the period of Akbar. The pictorial
colophon of the manuscript Gulistan of S'adi, dated 990 A.H. (1581
A.D.), executed by painter Manohar, represents the portraits of the
scribe Husain t6Zarrin Qalam " and the painter himself with a book in
his hand.10 This is not a mere accident. On and off we come across
authentic self-representations drawn by the painters of Mughal court
themselves, throughout the sixteenth century and part of the seventeenth
century. Extant among them are the pictures of Keshavdas dated 1590,
two of Daulat executed in 1596 and 1605-09 and of Goverdhan dated
1609.11 Portraits had a great fascination for the Mughal emperors.
Babur and Jahangir both were skilled in describing the personalities of
important men in their memoirs.12 Indeed with some imagination one
could even conjecture their likenesses. Akbar took great interest in
portraiture. He himself sat for it and had ordered his court painters to
draw the portraits of all the grandees of the kingdom. Thus an immense
album was prepared.13
Manohar, the earliest in the Mughal court, learnt the art of port-
rait painting from his father Basawan. The latter excelled in drawing

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 299

portraits and also some other branches of painting.14 He worked on

the folios of the Hamzanama (1560-73 A.D.), the earliest known illust-
rated manuscript of the Mughal school.15 To him goes the credit of
introducing Indian elements in Mughal miniatures.16 Manohar whose
work belongs to the period 1580-1640 surpassed his father and speciali-
sed in portraiture: He painted human and animal figures with facility
and success.17 A highly gifted artist, Manohar established himself
in the field by portraying himself when he was only 16 or 18 years
old.18

Manohar's portrait is drawn in the profile, which is the characte-

ristic feature of Jain art. This particular painting seems to have acted
as trend setter; from now the early Mughal style, where three-quarter face
was the rule, began to be increasingly replaced by the native tradition
until the latter fell into disuse by the first quarter of the seventeenth
century. Indeed, throughout this period portraiture had been imbibing
the native style in general. This trend thrived in spite of the fact that
Western pictures and engravings now pouring in the Mughal court in
numbers, depicting subjects such as Lord Christ, Virgin Mary, the
saints, emperors and princes, were mostly drawn in three-quarter view.
Painters were often ordered to make copies of the Western works, which
they faithfully reproduced.19 In original creations, however, they
strictly adhered to the Indian principles.

Keshavdas, chronologically next to Manohar, too portrayed himself

in the profile. The miniature displays Akbar in the company of two
nobles. The artist's own portrait with a scroll of paper in hand appears
separately in the foreground.20 An inscription on the scroll reads :
"firs sft sfinita affîsrc fatíta II qì<* gfc forare"
"Long live His Highness Jalaluddin Akbar Padishah. Samvat 1646
A.D.) on the 9th of the lighted half of Pausha. Written by Kesh
the painter".
Percy Brown has identified Keshavdas with the Kesu of A'in-i
Akbari .21 He does not explain the basis for such a conclusion. Barrett
and Grey have adopted the same view uncritically.22 This is incorrect.
As a matter of fact there were no less than five painters having similar
names, i. e., Kesu kalan (the elder), Kesu khwurd (the younger), Keshav
kahar (the palanquin-bearer), Kesu Gujarati and Keshav Gujarati.28
They must, therefore, be regarded as distinct individuals.

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 300

The third self-portrait is of Daulat. He has portrayed himself in

three-quarter view. This picture is a part of the pictorial colophon of
the manuscript, Khamsa of Nizami (British Museum, Or. 12208).24
Daulat specialised in portrait painting. Another portrait of his own
(c. 1605-9 A.D.) appears on the margin of folio 44 of Murqqa'a-i Gul *
shan.25 A distinct resemblance in the features of both these portraits
shows Dauláťs success in portraiture.
Goverdhan's self-portrait, drawn in profile - an accepted trend in
portraiture after Akbar, is dated 1018 A.H (1609-10 A.D.).86 In this
miniature he appears as a youth of 15-17 yearsģ Another portrait of his
(c. 1605-9 A.D.), executed by Daulat, bears close resemblance with the
former.27 Goverdhan, too, like Manohar, attained great success in
portraiture.28
Self-portraiture does not seem to have been commonly practised as
only a few painters out of the hundreds at the Mughal atelier are known
to have made their own pictures. None of the established portrait
painters such as Basawan, Bishandas, Abu'l Hasan, Hashim, Balchand,
Bichitr,29 Muhammad Nadir of Samarqand, etc., ever showed interest in
self-portraiture. The fact that such self-portraits as are met with appear
rather insignificantly on the margins, and pictorial colophons of the
manuscripts or on the corner of a miniature suggests that no con-
siderable importance was attached to them. The art of painting was in
the sixteenth century a prerogative of royalties and nobles. From them
were drawn also the subjects for portraiture. However, a change crept
in the seventeenth century. After Jahangir self-portraiture completely
disappeared from the Mughal art.

REFERENCES

1. In the western countries self-portraiture had become a popular art by the

of the 15th century. Among the earliest known specimens are the self-por
of the Italian master painters e. g. Antonello (c. 1475), Pietro Vannuc
(c. 1482), Filippino (c. 1484) and of the Spanish painter Pedro Berrugu
(c. 1485-90).
2. Brown, Indian Painting under the Mughals, II ed., New York, 1975, p. 143.
3. Cf. Sita Ram Chaturvedi, Kaiidas Granthavali. II ed., Kashi, Samvat, 2007,
pp. 113-4; Shukla, Shilpa Shas tra, II, Lucknow, 1967, pp. 78-9.
Scholars have given different dates of Kalidas. Macdonnell, History of Sanskrit
Literature , pp. 251, 323; Keith, Classical Sanskrit Literature , pp. 31-2; Bhan-

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 301

darkar, Annais of Bhandarkar Institute, VIII, Pt. X, 1926-27; Smith, Early

History of Ancient India, III ed., p. 304. AH suggest Kalidas to be in Gupta
period, i. e. 300-500 A. D. Chattopodhyaya gives the date 100 B. C. (Allahabad
University Studies , II, 1926, pp. 79-170). Kedar places him in Sunga period, i. e.
200-300 B. C. (Nagpur University Journal , No. 5, Dec. 1939).
4. Cf. Goswami and Dahmen-Dallapiccola, The Citralaksana of Nagnjit , Delhi,
1976, pp. 35, 68, 70-1.
5. Cf Krishnamohna Sastri, Kadambari of Banbhatta, Varanasi, 1961, p. 279.
6. Raghavan, "Some Sanskrit text on Painting", The Indian Historical Quarterly ,
IX, 1933, p. 907.
7. Coomaraswamy, Portrait Sculpture in South India . London, 1931, pp. 12-3.
8. Cf. Sita Ram Chaturbedi, op. cit Mcghdut (uttarmegh), p. 367.
9. Goswami and Dahmen-Dallapiccola, op. cit ., p. 77.
10. Royal Asiatic Society. Bengal, Catalogue No. 258. Reproduced: Urey in Leigb
Ashton, Art of India and Pakistan (Painting), London, 1948, PI. 121.
11. Keshavdas : Jahangir Album , (fol. 25a), National Library, Berlin; Daulat:
Khamsa of Nizami, British Museum (Or. 12208, fol. 325), Muraqq'a-i Gulshan
(fol. 44), Imperial Library, Tehran; Govardhan: Jahangir Album (fol. 25b),
op. cit.
12. Appearance and characteristics of individuals described by Babur in his memoir
Tuzuk-i Baburit tr. Beveridge. Baburnama* II edition, Delhi, 1970, I, Sultan
Mahmud Mirza, p. 45; Sultan Ahmad Mirza, p. 33; Bai Sunghar Mirza, p. Ill;
Sultan Husain Mirza, p. 258; II, Description of birds and animals, pp. 488-503.
Tuzuk-i Jahangiriy tr. Rogers, Delhi, 1968, II ed., pp. 33-4 (appearance of Akbar
described by Jahangir).
13. Abu'l Fazl, A'in-i Akbari,tx. Blochmann, I, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal,
Calcutta, 1948, p. 114.
14. Ibid.
15. Staude, "Les artistes de la cour d' Akbar et les illustrations du Dastan-i Amir
Hamza" Arts Asiatiques , II, 1955, Fig. 4; also by him ««Basawan", Encyclopaedia
of World Art , McGraw Hill, London, II, 1968, p. 385.
16. It is evident from the earliest illustrations attributed to Basawan viz : in the
MSS Hamzanama , Tutinama (Cleveland Mus. of Art), Diwan of Anwari (Fogg
Art Mus.), Darabnama (B. M. or. 4615).
17. See B. M. Alfieri, ««Manuhar", Encyclopaedia of World Art , op. cit., IX, p. 498;
Brown, op. cit., p. 129; Gray, op. cit., p. 498; PI. 331; Havell, Handbook of Indian
Art , London, 1929, p. 207, PI. LXXV.
18. In the self-portrait he appears a youth of 15-17 years. For reproduction, S. V.
f. n. 7.

19. For example "Christ, the Mary and St. Anne" (Collection of James Ivory, New
York); "The Madonna and Child" (B. M.); "The Mandonna and Child with
St. Joseph" (B. M ); Christian etching, Dara Shukoh Album , fol. 194 (Windsor
Castle Library); "Madonna and donars" and ««Mother and Child" (Imperial
Library, Teheran); ««Court of Jahangir" and ««Unhappy Lady" (Museum of
Fine Arts, Boston); etc.

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 302

20. Reproduced : Kuhnel and Goetz, Indian Book Painting , London, 1926, PI. 9.
21. Brown, op. cit., p. 197.
22. Barrett and Gray, Painting of India , Ohio, 1963, pp. 87, 93, 205.
23. For miniatures attributed to these painters see Kesu the elder in Darabnama (or.
4615), Tarikh-i Khandan-i Timuria , ff. 18, 49, 69, 72, 147. (Oriental Public
Library, Patna); Kesu the younger in Ta'rikh, ff. 193, 253, 323. 337, (op. cit.);
Kesu Kahar in Baburnama , PI. 74 (National Museum, Delhi, N. M. 50.326);
Kesu Gujarati in « lyar-i Danish , Pis. 63, 82 (Chester Beatty, Dublin); Keshav
Gujarati in Baburnama , ff. 384, 406 (B. M. or. 3714).
24. Reproduced i Martin, Miniature Painting and Painters of Persia, India and
Turkey , London, 1912, 1, Fig. 43; Brown, op. cit., Pl. XVIII.
25. Atabai Badri, Fehrist-i Murqq'at-i Kitab Khana-i Saltanati , Teheran, 1353, pp.
358-9. Reproduced : Godard, "Les Marges du Murakka' Gulshan", Athar-e Iran,
I, 1936.
26. Reproduced : Kuhnel and Goetz, op. cit., Pl. 38.
27. Murqq'a-i Guishan , op. cit., Badri, op. cit., Godard, op. cit.
28. Portraits attributed to this painter are in National Library, Berlin; Los Angeles
County Mus. of Art, New York; Chester Beatty Library, Dublin; Victoria &
Albert Mus., London (No. 18-1925); British Museum (Add. 18801); Freer
Gallery of Art, Washington (D. C. 39.46a); The Louvre, Paris (No. 7.163); etc.
29. Ettinghausen in his book Paintings of Sultans and Emperors of India in Ameri-
can Collections . Delhi, 1961, has suggested a self-portrait of Bichitr painter
(miniature in Freer Gallery of Art, No. 42.15). Reproduced : Ettinghausen,
op, cit o Pl. 14.

THE MADAD-I MAASH REGULATIONS IN MUGHAL EMPIRE

Iqbal Husain

While studying the Mughal revenue administration one comes

across various regulations concerning the madad-i maash grants. For
example, the Ain-i Akbari says that if the grant had been made to a
group without specifying the shares of each grantee in the zimn, and
one of the grantees died, the sadr was to determine his share, and this
share was to be resumed to the khalisa until the heirs presented them-
selves and established their deserts at the Court.1 Further it instructs
the 'amils to resume the grant of the person who had died or absconded.2
Shah Jahan's order of his 5th regnal year provided that one half of
all grants exceeding 30 bighas was to be resumed in the case of the

This content downloaded from

14.139.45.242 on Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:45:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms