| It is quite likely that the central figures were drawn first in the Kishangarh style and the rest of the picture completed by a different artist, a practice not uncommon in Indian painting and one confirmed by contemporary records. What is unusual in this particular hybrid is that the two styles should be so distinct and finished without disturbing the mood of the picture almost as if emphasis was being drawn to the isolation of the lovers from their surroundings. |
| The text, such as it is, neither detracts from, nor augments current knowledge of miniature painting. Its purpose is a shallow one and it can be waded through without fear. |
| An assertion, though, which is likely to mislead the reader should be clarified. Basohli painting, the forerunner of Pahari painting, is described by the authors as being ‘not nurtured by wealth’, in contrast to Mughal painting. This hypothesis is reinforced with the reference that rulers are often shown in ‘plebeian dress’ and that they are invariably depicted as seated upon ‘cotton carpets to smoke hookahs’. Very nearly all miniature painting that has survived and upon which modern researchers have based their conclusions was nurtured by wealth for the simple reason that is was not within the financial reach of the common man then, no more than it is today, to commission paintings from professional artists. |
| This is not to suggest that no painting was done of al by common folk. To those with the access to the costly implements and with the inclination to use them to their own enjoyment a choice perhaps lay, and work must have been executed in the same way that they created their more durable folk art. What is fallacious is to contend that Basohli painting was rustic and less courtly than its Mughal counterpart. It was in its own context as courtly and extravagant. |
| Many of the schools mentioned in the book are well represented in our own museum collections, particularly the Pahari portraits of rajahs, which are fascinating and rewarding studies of erly, often, perceptive portraiture. They represent telling records of personalities whose actions and ambitions shaped the history of our subcontinent. The casual attention paid in our country to our own rich collections betrays a guardedness and a lack of confidence in our attitudes, unbecoming to the spirit of a nascent nation. |
| To disavow the historical existence of a culture, or to neglect out of fear of being considered unpatriotic a legitimate and valid expression of our predecessors simply because it draws its inspiration from a different culture is ungenerous, negating in its narrow-mindedness the tradition of dispassionate and brilliant enquiry by European literary scholars, such as the late professor Arberry, into our culture. |
| The past belongs to us all as much as we all belong to the future, and it is only through an honest awareness of our heritage that we shall be able to preserve the rich continuous pattern of our cultural existence. |
Printed in THE HERALD, October 1970. |
