CHAPTER 5 - ARCHITECTURAL AND URBAN PATRONAGE In 1779 CE Ahilyābāī Hoḷkar sent a letter to Gopikābāī Peśvā, grandmother of the then Peśvā, Savāī Mādhavrāv and the wife of Nānāsāheb Peśvā. Some years before, Gopikābāī, who was staying at Nāśik, had constructed a kuṅda and ghāṭ on the Godāvarī River known respectively as Rāmkuṅda and Rāmghāṭ. Ahilyābāī wrote to Gopikābāī requesting for permission to repair and rebuild the same in a more artistic manner. Gopikābāī flatly refused any such permission saying that the kuṅda and ghāṭ were meant to preserve her memories which she did not want to be destroyed (Sathe, 2013, p. 143). Ahilyābāī retaliated by not sending the sarees that Gopikābāī had requested from Maheshwar. It was an act of what Bourdieu has termed as ‘symbolic violence’, a strategy employed by those having legitimacy in the social field to maintain their positions from any competition. Clearly, Gopikābāī saw Ahilyābāī’s intervention as a threat to her authority. This apparently simple event shows the acute awareness that patrons had, of the power of architecture in consolidating their social positions. They used architecture consciously to further their social and political aims. What purposes did the construction projects serve beyond the mere function? How were buildings used by the agents to assert authority and consolidate social positions? Can we trace any thematic continuity between the patronage of preceding centuries and the eighteenth century? This chapter attempts to answer such questions by focusing on patronage and matronage in the study area. Patronage and its relationship with architecture has been an important concern for a number of years in Historical studies. The basic concept of patron – client relationship comes from Roman history (Westbrook, 2005, p. 210). Three elements of such a relationship have been defined (Saller, 1982, p. 1). They are - a. A reciprocal (mutual interchange) exchange of goods and services b. A personal relationship of some duration and c. An asymmetrical relationship where the two parties are of unequal status The studies of patronage have focused on the elites (Gilbert, 2005; Nicols, 2013). The patronage by women or ‘matronage’ as it has been called, has also attracted attention in the recent years (Wescoat, 2015). The dominant themes in patronage research have been as follows (Wescoat, 2015, p. 177) 68 a. Royal patronage b. Role of influential women c. The social dynamics of giving and taking as an aspect of self - fashioning and cultural identity d. Tensions between communal benefits and personal ambition e. Applicability of patronage models to democratic communities Various theories such as of Magnificence (Jenkins, 1970, p. 162), Taste (Bourdieu, 1984), Benevolence (Rizvi, 2001, p. 123), and Piety (Goffen, 1990) have been explored in relation to patronage. The early scholarship which was focused on Greek, Roman and Renaissance eras has gradually shifted to the Islamic world. Along with studies of elite (Royal and Merchant) patronage, the patronage of religious elites has also been studied in Islamic context (Fernandes, 1997, p. 107). While some of the ideas especially those of ‘Magnificence’ and ‘Benevolence’ could be applicable to the context of the study; a better understanding of patronage can come from an Indian perspective. Having a culture-specific understanding of patronage was stressed by Westbrook (2005). Westbrook applies the concept of patronage to the ancient Near East. The research concludes that the Near East had ‘more subtle modes of distribution’ available to them than the Roman concept of patronage. The work of Romila Thapar that I examine later is of particular relevance in this regard as it explores the concept of patronage in the context of the Indian subcontinent. The study of patronage in the Indian subcontinent has chiefly been the concern of Historians and sociologists. A comprehensive collection of such studies was edited by Barbara Stoler Miller under the title ‘The Powers of Art – Patronage in Indian Culture’ (Miller, 1992). This volume focuses more on patronage in relation with the arts. A couple of articles by George Michell (2001) and Catherine Asher (Miller, 1992; 2001) consider the question of architectural patronage. Matronage in the Islamic world has been the subject of a collection of essays edited by Fairchild Ruggles (2001). Of particular interest is the essay by Ellison Banks Findly (2001, p. 91) which discusses matronage as a continuous phenomenon in the Indian subcontinent as witnessed through Buddhist, Jain and Mughal sites. The analysis offered is important for highlighting the role of matronage in Buddhist and Jain sites. Romila Thapar (2000, pp. 521, 589) has written a couple of papers which examine the concept of patronage in the Indian context. In these papers, Thapar has researched the idea of 69 patronage in Early India. The first paper titled ‘Patronage and the Community’ examines the idea of patronage as manifest in three distinct ways, one - as embedded in a society, second – as a deliberate act of choice and third – Patronage as service. An important concept that the paper highlights is that of Yajmān as an ‘embedded patron’ that is part of the cultural system. The second paper titled ‘Dāna and Dakśiṇā as Forms of Exchange’ discusses dāna as a two- sided act where the giver expects to receive the same in a larger quantity, whether it is loyalty or a credit of puṇya. The importance of these papers lies in their cultural analysis of patronage. The papers on patronage along with Dāna and Dakśiṇā give a conceptual frame of reference within which we can examine eighteenth-century Peśvā region. As I will explain later, this region in the eighteenth century was dominated by Brāmhaṇ leadership who belonged to a caste that prided itself on the knowledge of and adherence to the religious texts. Their patronage or, ‘Yajmānī’ was conditioned by what these religious texts said was appropriate or not appropriate. Specific studies on architectural patronage in India are hard to come by. Talbot (1991, p. 308) has looked at patronage in the thirteenth century south India, however, the paper focuses more on the gifts given to the temples rather than on architectural patronage. Besides the studies on Buddhist and Jain patronage, some scholars have worked on the architectural patronage of the period since the coming of Islam in thirteenth century CE. Anthony Welch (1993, p. 314) has worked on Tughluq patronage stressing on the import of Islamic forms into India and the gradual influence of Indian traditions on the same. Prominent among the scholars is Catherine Asher who has worked extensively on Patronage and architecture during the Mughal rule stressing on the relationship between the centre and periphery. Asher’s work on the patronage of Mansing (C. B. Asher, 2001, pp. 370-397) is an example of such a study. George Michell (2001, pp. 398 - 412) has worked on patronage and the architectural style of Vijayanagara court. In the first part of the chapter, I examine the traditions of patronage in Maharashtra before the eighteenth century. The purpose of this examination is twofold. Firstly it sets the ‘stage’ for the understanding of eighteenth-century patronage and secondly, it establishes a number of themes which help in structuring the study of the eighteenth century. 5.1 Traditions of patronage in Maharashtra before the eighteenth century The first records of patronage that we know of from this region are related to the various Buddhist sites of western Maharashtra. Buddhist sites carry inscriptions which indicate the patterns of patronage of these sites. The records reveal patronage by Royalty, Merchant Families, Communities, and Women. These ‘patterns of giving’ have been analysed 70 by Findly (2001, p. 91). Although we do not seem to have any examples of community patronage and matronage or patronage by women in the centuries between the Buddhist sites and the eighteenth century Maharashtra, the eighteenth century tells of a number of women who commissioned building projects. It may be hypothesised that the idea of community patronage may have been a continuing tradition well into the eighteenth century being conditioned by the social structure and being modest in nature. As against community patronage, the patronage and matronage by individuals would require political stability and access to resources which only the seventeenth century, to some extent and eighteenth century, to a large extent could provide. Religious leadership offering patronage to various places was a trend which was prevalent in Maharashtra at least since Chakradhar (thirteenth-century founder of the Mahānubhāv paṃtha). The Leelā Charitra , a chronicle of the events of Chakradhar’s life, offers evidence of the construction of ote (platforms) and guṃphā (small rooms) at various locations during his travels (Belwalkar, 2009, p. 82). In one of the leelā, Chakradhar narrates the qualities of good construction lime to masons (Leelacharitra - Ekanka, 1972, p. 30). This incidence further reinforces his active engagement with the construction process. Sixteenth- century saint Rāmadās was another prolific builder who patronised the construction of temples and maṭh (residence for sanyāsi similar to a Buddhist Vihara) as part of his attempts to spread and establish a religious order dedicated to the worship of lord Rām and Mārutī. In later years his followers came to be known as ‘rāmadāsī’ or servants of Rām. Besides the construction projects, there also exists a small composition by Rāmadās which describes various construction activities (1989, p. 431). His book Dāsabodh gives a clear list of types of constructions desirable to be built by a patron as a pious deed. ‘Vāpi kūpa sarovare, nānā devālaye śikhare Rājāṅgane manohare, vruṅdāvane bhuyari’ Dāsabodh (04/05/22) (A person should construct) stepped wells, wells, lakes, temples with spires, beautiful open spaces in front of temples with wide platforms and cellars for meditation This list of desirable constructions is very similar to the one quoted by the Dharmaśāstra as ‘pūrta dharma’ (which incidentally was an accepted activity for women and the untouchable castes alike!) (Kane, 1941, p.