MHI-10 Urbanisation in India Indira Gandhi National Open University School of Social Sciences
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MHI-10 Urbanisation in India Indira Gandhi National Open University School of Social Sciences Block 5 URBANISATION IN MEDIEVAL INDIA-2 UNIT 22 Spatial Characteristics of Mughal Cities 5 UNIT 23 Urban Patterns in Medieval Deccan 19 UNIT 24 Urban Culture and Society 37 UNIT 25 Primate Cities : Agra-Fathpur Sikri-Shahjahanabad 51 UNIT 26 Sacred City Spaces : Ajmer-Banaras-Pandharpur 75 UNIT 27 Case Study : Masulipatnam 97 Expert Committee Prof. B.D. Chattopadhyaya Prof. Sunil Kumar Prof. P.K. Basant Formerly Professor of History Department of History Department of History Centre for Historical Studies Delhi University, Delhi Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi JNU, New Delhi Prof. Swaraj Basu Prof. Amar Farooqui Prof. Janaki Nair Faculty of History Department of History Centre for Historical Studies IGNOU, New Delhi Delhi University, Delhi JNU, New Delhi Prof. Harbans Mukhia Dr. Vishwamohan Jha Prof. Rajat Datta Formerly Professor of History Atma Ram Sanatan Dharm Centre for Historical Studies Centre for Historical Studies College JNU, New Delhi JNU, New Delhi Delhi University, Delhi Prof. Lakshmi Subramanian Prof. Yogensh Sharma Prof. Abha Singh (Convenor) Centre for Studies in Social Centre for Historical Studies Faculty of History Sciences, Calcutta JNU, New Delhi IGNOU, New Delhi Kolkata Prof. Pius Malekandathil Dr. Daud Ali Centre for Historical Studies South Asia Centre JNU, New Delhi University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Course Coordinator : Prof. Abha Singh Programme Coordinator : Prof. Swaraj Basu Block Preparation Team Unit No. Resource Person Unit No. Resource Person 22 Prof. Abha Singh 25 Prof. Abha Singh Faculty of History Faculty of History School of Social Sciences School of Social Sciences Indira Gandhi National Open University Indira Gandhi National Open University New Delhi New Delhi 23 Dr. Radhika Seshan 26 Prof. Abha Singh University of Pune, Pune Faculty of History Dr. Kiran Jadhav School of Social Sciences Agasti College, Akole Indira Gandhi National Open University New Delhi Dr. Nalini Avinash Waghmare Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth 27 Prof. Ishrat Alam Pune Centre of Advanced Study in History Aligarh Muslim University 24 Prof. Abha Singh Aligarh Faculty of History School of Social Sciences Indira Gandhi National Open University New Delhi Material Production Cover Design Illustrations Mr. Manjit Singh Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena Mr. Ravindra Tomar Section Officer (Pub.) Mr. Vimal Gaurav Sharma EMPC, IGNOU SOSS, IGNOU EMPC, IGNOU, New Delhi New Delhi October, 2017 © Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2017 ISBN : All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or any other means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University. “The University does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the academic content of this course provided by the authors as far as the copyright issues are concerned” Further information on Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the University's office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or visit University's Website http://www.ignou.ac.in. Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi by Director, SOSS. Lasertypesetted at Graphic Printers, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091. Printed at : BLOCK 5 URBANISATION IN MEDIEVAL INDIA - 2 The plethora of European accounts available to us on Mughal cities largely look at the medieval cities from European lens – its primate cities are often branded as ‘camp cities’. Max Weber differentiated between the ‘Occident’ and the ‘Orient’. The ‘Oriental’ cities were viewed by them as mere extension of the Imperial household. The Weberian concept of patron-client relationship is often transformed to view the empire as ‘patrimonial-bureaucratic’ and its capital cities embodied the ‘patrimonial bureaucratic cities’ based on patron (emperor)-client (subjects) relationship. For Perry Anderson also Asian cities were subject to the ‘whims’ and ‘forces’ of the princes (Unit 22). Often these studies have branded medieval society ‘a stagnant society’, ignoring the ‘vitality’ of the medieval cities. The Pax Mughalica accelerated urbanisation. The high level of monetisation, centralisation of Mughal power, strengthening of the road and communication networks, a process which began with Sher Shah Sur strengthened further in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, making travel easy and comfortable which provided push to trade and commerce and fillip to urbanisation. Tavernier’s comment that ‘In India a village must be very small indeed if it has not a money-changer called a shroff, who was a banker to make remittances in money and issue letters of exchange’ clearly speaks of presence of high level of monetisation in Mughal India. By the third quarter of the seventeenth century almost entire Deccan fell under the Mughal sway. Cities like Bidar, Bijapur, Golconda, Burhanpur emerged as prominent urban centres where Mughal influence started showing prominently. However, in spite of strong Mughal impact, the Deccan cities closely integrated their indigenous culture, it thus reflected unique characteristics in built forms and city-culture (Unit 23). The urban social life and culture forms the theme of Unit 24. The cities broadly appeared as if divided into two broad divisions – ashraf and ajlaf. Nonetheless, there was a strong presence of middle class. The cities bloomed with cross-cultural ethos, in spite of strong religious and caste divisions cities imbibed traditions across caste and religious lines, celebrations appears to be a common heritage, status was of extreme importance and often cause of clashes, but clashes on ‘communal’ lines were never part of the cultural ethos, a feature that emerged so prominently as colonial legacy. The next three Units (25, 26, and 27) are planned to provide you with an in-depth analysis of varied urban forms – the primate cities, religious centres and port towns. The purpose is to reflect upon the seminal focus on specific cities, primarily to look into how certain broad characteristics of the Mughal towns were evident at these specific centres. One would find that such characterisations are broad and often overlap. 4th Page Blank UNIT 22 SPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MUGHAL CITIES* Structure 22.1 Introduction 22.2 Cities as Centres of Power and Authority 22.3 Patrimonial-Bureaucratic Cities 22.4 Camp Cities 22.5 Rural-Urban Continuum: The Qasbas 22.6 Landscape 22.6.1 Planning and Fortification 22.6.2 Chowk 22.6.3 Sacred Spaces 22.6.4 Caravansarais 22.7 Gardens in Mughal Cities 22.8 Population in Mughal Cities 22.9 Summary 22.10 Exercises 22.11 References 22.1 INTRODUCTION Abul Fazl in his Ain-i Akbari comments that, ‘People that are attached to the world would collect in towns without which there would be no progress’ clearly suggestive of the importance and cosmopolitan nature of the cities in the medieval period as convergence centres, a centre where life bustled with people across regions, and where the pleasure could be attained. Under the Mughals terms qasba, balda, shahr and bandar were in currency to denote various kinds of towns, metropolitan cities and port towns. There seems a clear distinction between the small town and the big town among the minds of medieval chroniclers. Shahr (Persian)/balda (Arabic) was used to address a big town. Bahar- i Ajam mentions shahr having lofty buildings with huge pleasure gardens. The capital towns were addressed as dar-ul khilafat. Bandar was a port town; while qasba as defined by Khwaja Yasin (Mahmud, 2000: 249) was ‘a big village by which the pargana is known’. Thus qasba was a ‘rurban’ centre; a township with strong rural-urban interface. A newly established centre generally had an epithet abad; while pura denoted a mandi or a suburb. Thus the connotation of early medieval pura denoting a nagara got transformed in the medieval period and certain new vocabulary gained currency so also the nature of the cityscape. 22.2 CITIES AS CENTRES OF POWER AND AUTHORITY The selection of site for the royal palace somewhat suggests ‘metaphors of control’, argues Catherine Asher. Babur choosing his garden residence in Agra at a site of his * Prof. Abha Singh, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. 5 Urbanisation in victory ‘symbolized his ability to hold and mould unruly Hindustan’. Similarly, Humayun Medieval India - 2 decided to construct Dinpanah at a site of old legendary Pandava capital Indraprastha meant to associate with ‘an ancient pre-Islamic past’ (Asher, 1993: 281). Akbar’s constructions of fort at Allahabad, argues Asher (1993: 281), was ‘clearly a statement of Mughal authority over earlier traditions and thus at the same time a link with the past.’ Ebba Koch argues that in Shah Jahan’s period, ‘the use of the baluster column and bangala roof of the jharokha in the public audience hall of Shahjahan’s Delhi palace is a highly conscious projection of Solomonic imagery’ (cited in Asher, 1993: 283). Eurocentrists argued that the Asian Islamic cities owed their existence to king’s power and authority. Perry Anderson commented, ‘the fate of the Islamic cities was normally determined by that of the state whose fortune had conferred their prosperity on them’ (cited in Chenoy, 2015: 4). The capital towns built by the Mughals were schemed to serve the theatric expression of splendour, power and authority. Chandni Chowk rivalled Chahar Bagh of Isphahan at the same time Jami Masjid of Shahjahanabad meant to ‘dwarf the Safavid Masjid-i Shah’ (Hambly, 1982: 446). The capital city was planned keeping in mind the ‘pomp of processions’, ‘spectacles’ and public ‘pageants’. The ‘palace’ served a ‘stage’ and ‘amphitheatre’ around which flowed the ‘aura’ of spectacles, festivities and institutions – political, cultural, commercial and religious. ‘This was like a play within a play…in which the relationships between courtiers were based on a false code of manners which nevertheless aped the truth’.