Murshidabad Painting

Murshidabad Painting a new school of painting with traditional mughal qalam at its root developed in Murshidabad, the capital of the far-flung Mughal province of Bengal during the first quarter of the 18th century. This province was earlier a great centre of art and culture during the Pala and Husain Shahi period. The Mughals too patronized art and culture of the area.
Murshidabad School was established under the direct patronage of its governors when dispersed court artists of the crumbling Mughal Empire took refuge at the court of Murshidabad in search of their livelihood. During 18th century Murshidabad emerged into a new era of prosperity as a result of European trade and settled government. It is not certain whether any royal atelier of Murshidabad was formed under its first subahdar MURSHID QULI KHAN (1716-1727). He was a pious ruler who despised all sorts of luxury. Yet some paintings of his time - Murshid Quli Khan holding darbar by the Bhagirathi River (c 1720), Muharram processions, festivals on Khwaja Khizir - are preserved in a folio of Clive Album now housed in the India Office Library, London. The style of these paintings are local variations of regional Mughal albums. No extant examples of paintings under the aegis of the next subadhar SHUJAUDDIN MUHAMMAD KHAN (1727-1739) have come down to us.
The real Murshidabad style of painting came into vogue under the next ruler ALIVARDI KHAN (1740-1756). A contemporary historian Ghulam Hussein Salim is of opinion that Alivardi Khan was an avid patron of art and culture. Some of the paintings of his court, entitled 'Nawab Alivardi Khan hunting Roe Buck' (c 1750-1755), 'Alivardi Khan seated on a Garden Terrace in conversation with his nephews', are now preserved in the India Office Library. These are evidence of the early Murshidabad atelier and this aged ruler favoured darbar and hunting scenes, somber moods, chilly palette, dominant whites and grays in both hunting and court scenes.
Under SIRAJUDDAULA, the grandson of Alivardi Khan, Murshidabad painting reached its highest apogee. His liberal views widened the horizon of Murshidabad court painting. Apart from formal court scenes and scenes of conversation his painters were encouraged to portray the cosy scenes of the zenana and also ragamala scenes. Thus a renewed vitality is noticed in the art activities of Siraj's brief reign. Like the pleasure loving later Mughal rulers scenes portraying women in romantic love scenes, as well as scenes portraying women in various activities in the zenana, and also women outside their precints were favoured by Sirajuddaula. Among the numerous raga and ragini scenes were depicted by the court artists. Among the ragas, hindola raga, gujari ragini, kakubha ragini, madhumadhavi ragini, bangali ragini etc are noteworthy. Lovers amidst a romantic landscape or on a royal terrace or on a river cruise are the most favourite scenes of this period.
Like their Mughal precursors, the Murshidabad artists painted on hand made papers in gouche. They worked on Mughal qalam. Themotifs of semi circular bushes bordering the terrace, the placid river with storks dotted on its banks overlooking the terrace; also far away vistas of undulating hillocks with schematically arranged semi-circular shrubs are indicators of Murshidabad provenance.
Under the next ruler MIR JAFAR (1757-1760), Murshidabad atelier witnessed no remarkable change in the style of painting except losing vitality and charm of Siraj's period. During this period Puran Nath, alias Hunhar, a renowned artist from Lucknow joined the Murshidabad atelier.A beautiful painting by Puran Nath, now preserved in the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, depicts Nawab Mir Jafar and his son Miran inspecting armies amidst a vast field. Other miniatures representing single portrait of the nawab amidst barren natural settings, formal court scenes, etc recall the style of Alivardi Khan's atelier for their similarity of themes and choice of somber atmosphere and pallid colour scheme.
The Lucknow painters who worked under Mir Jafar continued to work in the atelier of the next ruler MIR QASIM (1760-63). Among them the most renowned painter was Dip Chand, from whose meticulous brush came the famous portrait of Gurgan, a courtier of Mir Qasim, which is now preserved in the Victoria & Albert Museum. Formal court scenes of the nawabs were also painted during this period, which are reminiscent of the paintings of his preceeding rulers. By the time of Mir Qasim, the arrival and predominance of Lucknow artists brought in a remarkable change in the Murshidabad style, when the prevailing Mughal qalam was replaced by the Lucknow qalam. Portraits of nawabs and courtiers overwhelmed by exaggerated emotion, with fine stipplings of grey and brownish ground, the flower beds at the back drop of the portraits, yellow palette of the lily pond are indicators of Lucknow qalam.
The defeat and deposition of Mir Qasim by the English and the ascendancy of the aged puppet Nawab Mir Jafar for a second term to the masnad of Murshidabad, disturbed the congenial atmosphere needed for the promotion of art and culture. The patronage now passed on to the opulent zamindars, Muslim nobles, Hindu and Jaina businessmen and British officials residing near Murshidabad, who employed the disbursed artists to illustrate popular Hindu-Muslim manuscripts as well as muraqqas (picture albums) containing portraits of Mughal rulers, nawabs, courtiers, representation of ragamalas etc. Among those manuscripts and albums Dastur-i-Himayat, Razamnama, Nala Damayanti, Nabwa Daman, Ragamala, and Nayaka-Nayikabheda miniatures received the patrons favour. In the illustrations of Hindu gods and religious themes the artists represented local varieties of Hinduism in Bengal, such asVaishnavite and Tantric mode. While depicting those miniatures, the artists faithfully represented the flora and fauna of Bengal in a rather naive and folkish manner. However, the famine of 1769 dealt the final blow to the last vestiges of Murshidabad painting when the famine-striken poor artists took shelter at the Britsh master's atelier where they adapted themselves to the European influenced company style of painting.

Lakhiraj (rent-free grant)

Lakhiraj (rent-free grant) an Arabic term for rent-free land granted as a mark of favour to a subject by a superior landholder or the sovereign. Lakhiraj land or lands exempted from rent was an important characteristic of the Mughal constitution. During Hindu period also, there was a system of nishkar or rent-free lands granted to people favoured by the royalties for various reasons. The maintenance of religious establishments, educational institutions, shrines and temples etc. was considered to be the state responsibilities from very ancient times. Under the Mughals, the tradition attained its peak. According to the AMINI COMMISSION (1776), a significant part of revenue lands of the empire was assigned to the lakhirajdars of various denominations. In government documents the lakhiraj lands were recorded then as baze zamin or miscellaneous lands.
Attempts were made to resume baze zamins from the beginning of the British rule. The nature of the colonial state was inconsistent with the lakhiraj system. But stiff opposition from the grantees persuaded the government to revise its original policy and resume only those lands to rental which were proved to be alienated illegally. According to the Regulations XIX and XXXVII of 1793, all lakhirajdars were required to produce their sanads for verification and registration with the district collector's office. In 1822, the government resolved to make a survey of all illegally alienated lands and resume them to state ownership. The drive for the resumption of lakhiraj land led to a large-scale cancellation of lakhiraj sanads, which were mostly held by the Muslims. The drive ended in 1840 and since that time no rent-free land, unless claimed by any successor, was ever resumed by government.
Lakhiraj lands include pirottar or lands for maintenance of sufi establishments, brahmottar or lands for maintenance of Brahmanical establishments, aima or lands for charity organisations, cheragi or lands for upkeeping shrines, madat-i-mas or lands for the support of educational and benevolent institutions. According to law, the successors to the lakhiraj lands can enjoy them but cannot transfer them without a sanction from the government. Though lakhiraj lands were rent-free, every district collectorate maintains detailed records of such land in a series called B-Register, which records the latest incumbents of the lakhiraj rights. During British and Pakistan(East Bengal) periods, all lakhiraj grants were looked after by the Court of Wards, which used to manage a grant if its holders were in conflict as regards their individual rights and obligations.

Shobha Singh

Shobha Singh a petty zamindar of Chetwa-Barda in the Chandrakona subdivision of Midnapur. He revolted against Mughal rule in Bengal in June 1695. Historians have debated over the ancestry of Sobha Singh, one scholar claiming his descent from Raghunath Singh of Chandrakona, who, according to a farman of 1734, was the zamindar of Chandrakona at the end of the seventeenth century. A contemporary French letter from CHANDANNAGAR referred to the 'good family' of Sobha Singh, which would suggest that he might not have been a Bagdi as generally alleged, but perhaps of an inferior variety of ksatriya. According to this French letter, Sobha Singh was a petty ijaradar under Krishnaram Ray, zamindar of Burdwan, who was the principal ijaradar of the area. Sobha Singh used to pay annually Rs 22,000 for the ijara, while Krishnaram's ijara was Rs 22 lakh, making the latter a very wealthy man.
The immediate cause of Sobha Singh's revolt cannot be ascertained. A contemporary French letter suggested that the reason behind Sobha Singh's revolt was a more far-reaching one than simply a quarrel over land with his superior. The time was opportune as Emperor AURANGZEB was then in the Deccan fighting the Marathas, while there was a possibility of continuing conflict between the subadar and the diwan in the Mughal court at Dhaka, then the Mughal capital of Bengal.
The attack of Sobha Singh on Burdwan was not sudden, although very well planned. There were several skirmishes before Sobha Singh attacked Krishnaram Ray at Burdwan, which perhaps was not expected by him. It appears from contemporary European documents that the attack occurred in the later months of 1695. The farman of 1734 put the death toll of Krishnaram's family to twenty-two, excepting a son, Jagat Ray, who was then away. The merciless killing of innocent family members, including ladies, would suggest that the conflict had deeper causes and not merely a land dispute. A temple inscription of Daspur, belonging to his zamindari, depicts Sobha Singh as a cruel person.
After wiping away Krishnaram and his family, Sobha Singh began to seize all the estates of the late zamindar. With a huge fund at his disposal, Sobha Singh began to recruit disgruntled Afghans from north India. The contemporary English report speaks of the plundering of the country by these Afghans, leading to the ruination of several mansabdars.
The involvement of the court of Dhaka in the revolt comes from the rivalry between the subadar IBRAHIM KHAN and the diwan, whose favourite was Manikchand, ancestor of JAGAT SHETH. His brother, Golulchand, a contract merchant of the English EAST INDIA COMPANY, had made contact with Sobha Singh and had passed his bills for money, disregarding the advice of his friends. This liaison became known to the subadar, who secretly began to intercept letters and bills of the two merchants. This led to his imprisoning Hiranand Seth, father of the two merchants, possibly at Patna, where the SARRAFs led a strike against the arrest. Ibrahim Khan also arrested Manikchand at Dhaka and kept him in iron chains under heavy guard. Golulchand, on his way to Dhaka, had heard of the imprisonment and had escaped to Mukhsudabad (later known as Murshidabad) to find that all his properties and estates had been seized, sealed up and secured. The sarrafs of Hughli however struck work, possibly with the tacit support of the diwan. Golulchand was arrested at KASIMBAZAR possibly before August 1696. The action of the subadar would reveal his liaison with a section of the rebels, since without their cooperation, it would have been difficult to intercept the letters and bills of Manikchand.
Meanwhile the emperor had rebuked the subadar for neglecting to suppress the revolt. It appears that the subadar was asked to recover Rs 39 lakhs, looted by Sobha Singh from Burdwan, from the faujdar Nurulla Khan for his failure to arrest Sobha Singh. The mention of such a specific sum would suggest that the diwan's report against the subadar had gone home, although the diwan was equally alarmed of the seizure of the merchants since their papers might reveal his link with the rebels. The conflict within the Mughal polity at Dhaka had fuelled the revolt and further helped to dislocate the economy.
Such dislocations were caused more by the unrestrained plunder of Afghan mercenaries, whose numbers had swelled to nearly eight thousand horsemen. Sobha Singh had also recruited several thousand infantrymen, possibly bagdis of the villages around. Such an anarchical condition discouraged the merchants and restricted trade and commerce. Radhanagar, noted for its textile production and market, was controlled by the unruly soldiers belonging to Sobha Singh. It is not surprising therefore that the sarrafs had left Hughli and all financial transactions on the Bhagirathi belt were interrupted.
The European companies had begun to take precautions. At Qasimbazar, under the rebels then, the DUTCH built high walls enclosing their factory, while the rebels wanted the Dutch to pay sixty thousand rupees or deliver their gomostah to them on the ground that the Dutch were indebted to Krishnaram. On the Dutch refusal to pay, Sobha Singh threatened to personally visit their factory at Hughli and to stop their trade. The Dutch paid a few thousand rupees, which did not pacify Sobha Singh. By that time, Sobha Singh had established chowkies on the river between Hughli and Mukhsudabad to collect tolls from the passing boats.
Rebuked by the court, subadar Ibrahim Khan had ordered his son Zabardast Khan to prepare an army. At the same time he had asked the companies to join the King's forces, which they refused, perhaps more out of fear that the rebels would plunder their factories. The subadar gave parwana to the three companies to fortify their factories, which they did with bastions and ditches.
While the merchants were refusing to send goods, the rebel chowkies began to stop European boats on the Bhagirathi. The companies complained to Sobha Singh and the Raja ordered these to be released. By the end of April 1696, Sobha Singh had begun to collect revenue from the land by force and was settling down to rule the country in his name. The boats of the merchants were allowed to pass if they paid duties, which seemed to be quite high in comparison to pre-revolt days.
The character of the rebellion began to change perhaps from the first week of July 1696, when the rebels began to take up a far more aggressive posture in an attempt to expand their operations. But this was largely caused by the sudden accidental death of Sobha Singh.
The historian Salimulla, writing 67 years after the event, narrated the romantic story of Sobha Singh's death caused by stabbing by Krishnaram's daughter, when Sobha Singh tried to molest her. JADUNATH SARKAR believed it in his History of Bengal, but discounted it in favour of the report (Akhbarat) that Prince Azimuddin had killed Sobha Singh in 1698. Both these accounts are found to be inaccurate. The farman of 1734 and the contemporary European documents clearly mention that, excepting a son, who was given back the zamindari later, all family members of Krishnaram were killed. The contemporary French letters of 21 November 1696 and 15 January 1697 clearly mention that while Sobha Singh was regaling with ladies, he died of a fall from a high terrace. The despatch of Prince Azimuddin (Akhbarat) is suspect since the rebels held out till 1703-04 and were finally flushed out by MURSHID QULI KHAN for which he was rewarded by the emperor. After the death of Sobha Singh, his uncle Maha Singh, and not his brother as ascribed so far, took over the command nominally, while for all practical purposes, it was the Afghan leader, RAHIM KHAN, who controlled the movement.
This revolt had far-reaching effects on the economic and political structure of Bengal. The European companies were allowed to fortify their factories, which enabled them to obtain extraterritorial concessions and privileges later. The English accession to three villages in 1698 became the nucleus on which the later capital of British India grew up. The other effect was the propensity of the new subadar and the diwan to collect easy money from the merchants, creating an ethos of coercion by the state apparatus on the mercantile community that was earlier absent. The anarchical condition caused by unrestricted plunder, particularly of urban areas on the bank of the Bhagirathi, created scarcity of liquid cash for a few years. It took the astute diwan Murshid Quli Khan some time to bring order in the dislocated politico-economic structure of Bengal in the early eighteenth century.