SHAH JAHAN’S VISITS TO DELHI PRIOR TO 1648: NEW EVIDENCE OF RITUAL MOVEMENT IN URBAN MUGHAL INDIA In the past decade scholarly research on Mughal architecture has widened so as to in- clude the particular approaches taken by ur- ban historians and geographers. They feel that scholars in the field are literally too narrow-minded when they view buildings (or architectural complexes) as “isolated art ob- jects and symbols.” They claim that monu- ments should also be considered in the con text of their original environment, as ‘nodes in an elaborate network of roads, communi- cations, and ritual movement ...linked ...with a host of related places.” The main problem of this approach lies in the difficulty of rec- onstructing the original state of affairs. Much of the original physical environment. of Mughal buildings has been altered or is lost altogether.* Attempts to establish from writ- ten sources the possible interconnections between buildings in an urban context in turn face severe obstacles. The major difficulty to be overcome here is the fact that Mughal writers addressed topics of urbanist and en- vironmental concern even more rarely and in a less systematic way than architectural issues. If they did so at all, then in brief re- marks which do not always contain the infor- mation the contemporary observer seeks to know. However, it has to be admitted that ‘students of Mughal source material have un- til recently focused on other issues and have therefore largely neglected conducive evi- dence of the ways in which buildings might have been interrelated.® Other interests and concerns have also led me to recognize this problem. Only after studying a body of texts extracted from the histories of Shah Jahan more closely with a different objective in mind did | realise that the material provided highly interesting evidence for a so far un- considered connection which the Mughal emperors established between themselves and certain historical sites of Delhi. These findings throw new light on the role of Delhi in Mughal history before the construction of Shah Jahan’s new capital Shahjahanabad. These texts were gathered during my res- earch of the hunting palaces of Shah Jahan (¢. 1628-58), * particularly Shah Jahan’s hunt- ing palace near Palam in the western outs- kirts of Delhi. When | analyzed the relevant passages culled from the main contemporary chronicles | noticed that Shah Jahan’s au- thors mentioned the hunting resort invariably and solely in a specific historical context, namely that of a fixed station in the program- ‘me of an imperial visit to Delhi. 1 further noticed that these visits were described only 8 for a limited period of time, namely between February 1634, after Shah Jahan had ‘acceded to the throne and came to Delhi for the first time as emperor, and April 1648, when he moved from Agra to Delhi to take up residence in the just completed fortress palace of his new capital Shahjahanabad. This move marked the transfer of the capital of the Mughal empire from Agra back to Delhi which became — after a period of about ni- nety years — again the main seat of govern- ment.* Although the descriptions of Shah Ja- han's Delhi visits are not very detailed they nevertheless allow us to reconstruct these imperial visits as a ritual which evolved from a tradition reflecting the historical relation- ship of the Mughals with Delhi.* Early in the year 1634 Shah Jahan decided to visit the northern region of his empire, particularly Lahore and Kashmir. This was to be his first march to the north after he had come to the throne in 1628. The imperial train set of from Agra at the beginning of February, 1634, and at the end of the month the emperor arrived in Delhi which was to be the first major hat All historians of Shah Jahan describe his Del- hi visit, both in prose and verse. As is often the case, it is not the official historian CAbd al-Hamid Lahori but the self-appointed histo- rian Muhammad Salin Kanbo who provides the fullest account of the event: “On the next day [5th Isfandar 1043/24th February 1634] Salimgarh which is situated on the bank of the river Jaun [Yamuna] by the most holy alighting of His Majesty drew a veil on [= put to shame] Madinat al-Salam Bagh- dad”... This place was originally founded by Salim Khan, son of Sher Khan Afghan, but after laying out the base of the four wails of this edifice he did not have the opportunity to construct a building because the times were unfavourable to him and so it remained unfin- ished. To the mind of Hazrat Jannat Makani [‘His Majesty Dwelling in Paradise”, the pos. thumous title of Jahangir] the pleasantness of this place of the signs of paradise hap- pened to be agreeable and [therefore] he or- dered its construction and repair. He built delightful pavilions and pleasant houses and every time while coming and going through Dar al-Mulk-i Dinliv ("Seat of Empire” i. e. the official title of pre-Shahjahanbad Delhi} [on his way from and back to Agra] he took up residence there. In short, Hazrat Sulaiman Makani ["His Majesty of the Station of Solo- mon” i. @. Shah Jahan] on the second day of hhis stay at Salimgarh which was the 7th ofthe month [Isfandar= 26th February] rode — alongside Victory and Success — and hastened to perform the pilgrimage ( ziyarat) to the mausoleum (rauza) of Hazrat Jannat Ashiyani [“His Majesty Nestling in Paradise”) Humayun Badshah. After carrying out the ceremony of the circumambulation (tawaf) of that exalted place he performed the ritual of visiting (ziyaraf) that great funerary enclo- sure (hazira ) which is the most noble and ‘august among the sacred places of that land (kishwar) and carried out a distribution of lar- gesse to the attendants and those employed in the service and the like of that place. After that he turned towards the ziyarat of the holy tomb (margad-i muqaddas) of the leader of those who walk on the mystic path, the model of holy men, the Sultan of the Shaikhs, Shaikh Nizam al-Din Auliya. And with full devotion he gained in abundance different kinds of blessings and spiritual strength (barakat) by reading the Fatiha {the first Sura of the Qur'an] [and in this way] he kindled the torches for the further illumination of the soul and the [greater] comfort of this holy dust [i. e. the body of the saint]. And according to the sublime order a sum of five thousand rupies from the private purse — in addition to what the imperial children of high dignity had offered — [were given to] the trustworthy persons of the exalted dargah ‘eto be distributed among deserving persons of Dar al- Mulk-i Dihli. On the 8th of the month the emperor moved further afield towards Palam. The magnificent building in this place which had been founded by His Majesty was elevated to the atlas of the sky by his noble arrival. For four days in this pleasure ground he enjoyed the hunting and by hunting he gained joy", This imperial tour of the greater urban area of Delhi was not invented by Shah Jahan. It followed a well-established precedent in the Mughal imperial tradition whose origin can be traced all the way back to Babur the founder of the dynasty. When Babur came to Delhi shortly after his victory at Panipat in 1826 as conqueror of the Delhi Sultanat2 he “appropriated” its old capital by making a perambulation of what he apparently consi- dered to be the most important of its histo- rical wabHTsAL (PALA MAP OF THE GREATER URGAN AREA OF DELHI WITH THE STATIONS OF SHAH JAHANS VISITS. (ORAWING BY RA. BARRAUD) ° eo FORT Humayun’ onRGAH of NZAMUDON“after we ... had made the circuit of Shaikh Nizamu'd-din Auliya’s tomb we dismounted on the bank of the Jun [Yamuna] over against Dihli. That same night ... we made an excur- sion into the fort of Dinli and ...there spent the night... Next day ... | made the circuit of Khwaja Qutbu’d-din’s tomb and visited the tombs and residences of Sultan Ghiyasu'd- din Balban and Sultan Ala‘ud-din Khilj, his Minar, and. the Hauz-shamsi, Hauz-i-khas and the tombs and gardens of Sultan Buhlul and Sultan Sikandar (Ludi)... On Thursday we dismounted on the bank of the Jun, over against Tughlugabad, "? The political implications of Babur's tour de ville are borne out by the fact that afterwards (on a Friday) he sent a delegation of men of religion back into Delhi to have the khutba (sermon) read in his name, an act by which according to Islamic practice Babur formally assumed sovereignity. Babur's companion Zain Khan, who gives a corresponding account of the visit, concludes its description on a didactic note by adding that its purpose lay in “rendering warning and to set certain examples.” With the somewhat cryptic re- mark of “rendering warning”, Zain Khan ap- pears to allude to an ancient theme of Per- sian literature which reveals that ruined sites of past glories are to remind the observer that his own achievements are as ephemeral as those of the great ones who raised the buildings now lying in decay before him." Zain Khan's remark about Babur setting an example apparently refers to the pious ge- sture he made with the pilgrimage to the gra- ves of the great Sufi shaikhs of Delhi, For the modern observer this is one of the many instances where he can so easily identify with Babur because his visit to Delhi shows surprising analogies to that of a sightseer of our times who wants to see as much as Possible of a place which is new to him. In any case, when we compare Babur’s tour of Delhi with that of Shah Jahan more than a century later we notice that considerable changes had taken place. First, Shah Ja- han's visit encompassed only four sites; namely, Salimgarh, the mausoleum of Humayun, the shrine of Nizam al-Din Auliya and the hunting ground of Palam. Second, these places were by no means new to the emperor. To find out how this selective type of Mughal imperial visits to Delhi had developed we have to turn to the accounts of Akbar’s and Jahangit’s time. Abu'l Fazl, the historian of ‘Akbar (. 1556-1605) reports some eleven visits of his emperor to Delhi. The one of 1877 anticipates that of Shah Jahan quite closely “On the day of Asman, 27th Azar, Divine month, [18h December] the capital of Delhi was glorified by the Shahinshah’s advent, First of all he circumambulated the holy sh- rine of His Majesty Jinnat Ashiyani, and sho- wered gifts on the custodians. ‘Then he Visited the other tombs, and was also lavish in gifts there. On 3 Dai, Divine month [24th December], he visited the quarters of Shaikh Farid [Bukhari] Bakhshi Begi, who had many seats in that delightful neighbourhood on the banks of the Jumna .....On the 5th of the month he halted at the sarai of Badlis and spent some days there in administrative work and in hunting. The needy of that part were replenished from the table of his bounty." This passage of the Akbar nama does not mention expressis verbis that Akbar hunted also at Palam: it is, however, reported by Bada’uni and Nizam al-Din.” These authors also tell us more about the identity of the “other tombs" which according to Abu'l Faz! ‘Akbar visited after that of Humayun, namely that they were those of “the great saints of that illustrious locality." Taking Akbar’s devotion to the Chishtiyya order into account there can be no doubt that these included the shrine of Shaikh Nizam al-Din Auliya. The quarters of Shaikh Farid where Akbar took up residence may well have been at Salimgarh because we learn from Jahangir that Akbar had given the fortress to the prominent nobleman who added constructions to it.* It appears therefore that the sites visited by ‘Akbar during his Delhi visit of 1577 com- prised the four visited by Shah Jahan fifty seven years later. Akbar, however, observed a different order in seeing them and visited other places as well. Furthermore, Akbar did not follow this pat- tern every-time he visited Delhi. Out of the eleven visits reported by Abu'l Fazi for the years 1564, 1566, 1567, 1568, 1570, 1574, 1877, 1878, 1581, 1585 and 1599, Akbar went to Humayun’s tomb nine times, to the tombs of the saints (including that of Nizam al-Din) eight times, hunted only twice (?) at Palam and stayed two or three times in the house of Shaikh Farid Bakhshi.® The analysis of these accounts reveals an emphasis on the pilgrim- ages to the tomb of Humayun and those of the saints of Delhi.That Akbar considered Delhi mainly a place of pilgrimage is also borne out verbatim by ‘Abu'l Fazl who at times will tell us about the purpose of an Akbar visit to Delhi. Thus we learn for instance that in 1568, when Akbar made a pilgrimage to the tombs of the Delhi shaikhs, he did s0 to “strengthen his heart by the influences of holy recluses” for the con- quest of Ranthambhor.* His Delhi visits of 1870 and 1574 are to be understood as ex- tensions of his customary pilgrimage to Ajmer because they either preceded or fol- lowed it. This is particularly true of his Delhi visit of 1870 which Akbar undertook imme- diately after his great historical pilgrimage ‘on foot from Agra to Ajmer to redeem his pledge to Shaikh Muc'in al-Din Chishti for the birth of his son Salim (the later emperor Jahangir). By including their Delhi shrines in- to this pilgrimage Akbar clearly wanted to make the grandest devotional gesture to the Chistiyya sufis. To heighten the moral cha- racter of his 1570-Delhi visit he went at a later point also to “the stations and buildings. which right-thinking princes had erected in former times and received instructive warn- ing thereby." Akbar here followed the same example of princely conduct which — according to Zain Khan — informed already Babur's first visit to Delhi. The remaining Delhi visits of Akbar appear to have had no special purpose; they were un- dertaken when the emperor happened to pass through the city on his way to some other destination. When we look af the six visits of Delhi re- ported by Jahangir (r. 1605-27), we notice that early in his reign there was no occasion for great ceremony. In 1608 while pursuing his rebellious son Khusrau, Jahangir passed hastily through Delhi and stopped only briefly to turn to the tomb of Humayun and that of Nizam al-Din for intercession in the matter of Khusrau.* In 1608, on his return to Agra, Jahangir took up residence at Salimgart and planned a hunt at Palam. After he leamed, however, that the astrologers had fixed the time of his grand entry into Agra earlier than ‘expected he gave up the idea of the hunt and went directly to Agra by boat.* Only in No- vember 1619 on his way to Lahore and Kash- mir he had for the first time after his acces- sion enough leisure for a more formal visit to the old capital. In our context it is of great “SALIMGARH CONNECTED WITH THE RED FORT BY JAHANGIN'S BRIDGE, THE YAMUNA FLOWING BETWEEN THEM, SEEN FROM THE NORTH, [COMPANY ARTIST, DELHI, FIRST HALF OF oth CENTURY, VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM L¥f 40-923. (PHOTO E. KOCH)interest that the sites visited on this occasion corresponded exactly to those to which Shah Jahan went in February 1634: “On Thursday the 29th [Aban = 20th No- vember], Delhi, the abode of blessings, was adorned by the alighting of the army of good fortune. At first | hastened with my children and the ladies on a visit to the enlightened shrine of Humayun (may the lights of God be his testimony!), and having made our off- erings there, went off to circumambulate the blessed mausoleum of the king of holy men (Shaikh Nizam al-Din Chishti), and strenghtened my courage, and at the end of the day alighted at the palace, which had been got ready in Salimgarh. On Friday, the 30th, | halted. As they had at this time pres- erved the hunting-place of the pargana of Palam, according to order, it was repre- sented that a great number of antelope had collected there. Accordingly, on the ist of the Divine month of Azar | started to hunt with cheetahs." On his subsequent Delhi visit early in 1621 Jahangir stayed at Salimgarh, hunted at Palam, and went later to the tomb of Humayun.” When he came to Delhi again in late autumn of the same year he stayed at Salimgarh and hunted near Delhi (perhaps at Palam 7). The last visit reported in the Tuzuk is that of 1624 when we learn only that he took up residence in Salimgarh. The conclusion which emerges from the descrip- tions of his visits is that Jahangir did not come to Delhi for a special purpose but visited it only when he had to pass through it ‘on the way to some other destination. But when he came, he was mainly attracted by the prospect of hunting at Pala; at least there is no other point of a Delhi visit which he describes in such detail In summary, we can state that for Akbar, Del- hi was primarily a place of pilgrimage, while Jahangir saw it rather as a place of hunting, Concurrently we begin to see a pattern of an imperial Delhi visit forming which focuses on Salimgarh, the tomb of Humayun, the tomb of Shaikh Nizam al-Din and Palam. However, this scheme was not binding and remained ‘open to variations, so that some stations could be emphasized at the expense of others, ‘TOMB OF HUNAYUN, 1862-7 (PHOTO E. KOCH 1978)ion to Akbar and Jahangir, Shah Jahan followed the “imperial pattern® which had determined his first visit to Delhi in 1634 more consistently. When the emperor halted at Deihi on his way to the north or when returning from there to ‘Agra, he would take up residence in Salim- garh (also named Nurgarh). From there he ‘would make the pilgrimage to the tomb of Humayun and then to the shrine of Shaikh Nizam al-Din Auliya. The visit would end with afew days of hunting at Palam. The emperor would leave the main part of his train behind at Delhi or send it off to the next halt and con tinue accompanied only by his closest en- tourage for a few days of relaxation in the hunting ground. The visits of February 1634, March 1635 and September 1638 follow this, Very pattern, except that in 1635 he dropped already the visit of the tomb of Nizam al- Din.% The pattern begins to change more distinctly in his visits of 1642/43 and 1645, which fall in the period when construction had started on his new city and fortress palace (gia). Now the inspection of the con- struction site of the gia which was given priority in the urban building programme took Precedence over two of the traditional points. Of the visit. Shah Jahan would now not stay at, Salimgarh but strike camp near the construc- tion site and omit the pilgrimage to Nizam al- Din’s shrine altogether. Humayun’s tomb and in particular the hunt at Palam were kept in the programme." During Shah Jahan’s last Visit to the city to be described by his histo- rians, namely that of December 1647- January 1648 on his way back from his un- Successful Balkh and Badakhshan cam- aign, he gave up the ritual of the visit alto- gether. Now the emperor was so preoc- Cupied with the new palace that he halted only briefly at Salimgarh and went for a last inspection to the almost completed gila. He then boarded a boat directly to Agra to return three months later to take up residence in the new palace with a grand formal entry.22 These Delhi visits of Shah Jahan very much had the character of a ritual — at least this is, the picture the reports convey. It is particu- larly noteworthy that Shah Jahan visited no ‘other places at Delhi than those of the establ- ished programme or if he did his historians ‘were careful not to mention it. It is typical of ‘Shah Jahan that he sought to give a fixed form to institutions that had been handled in ‘@ more informal way by his predecessors. This is true of a wide range of activities such ‘as urban planning, architecture, the order of 23 marches in addition to etiquette and court ceremonial. The trend to regulate the activi- ties of the emperor and the court explains why the imperial visits focused on the same places and observed a certain order. But to understand why the four particular sites had become the focal points of an imperial Delhi visit we have to recapitulate briefly their hi- story to see what they meant to the Mughals, in particular to Shah Jahan. Salimgarh Salimgarh is a small fortress of a segmental polygonal outline enclosed by rubble mason- ry walls with several bastions situated op- posite the north-eastern corner of Shah Ja- han's fortress palace, the Red Fort. Tcday both fortresses are separated by the road which takes the place of a diversion of the river Yamuna (the Mughal Jaun) which in Mughal times flowed between them. As we have learned already from Kanbo’s brie’ hi- story of the citadel, Salimgarh took its name from Salim Shah ‘(Islam Shah) Sur, who founded during the time of his brief reign from 1545-54. Jahangir tells us that near the river bank Humayun had built a “square chaukandi [pavilion whose dome sits on tour open arches] with glazed tiles” for informal gatherings. Above it was a platform (?) of stone (suffa az sang) constructed by Murtaza Khan (Shaikh Farid Bukhari) after the fortress. had been given to him by Akbar.» By 1619 a new palace (daulat khana) was erected there by the order of Jahangir.s* In 1621-22 Jahangir also built a bridge to connect Salim- Qarh in its south-west with the raised ground on the opposite bank of the Yamuna which was later to be occupied by Shah Jahan's Red Fort.* The palace served as a residence for the Mughal court whenever it passed through Dethi until Shah Jahan’s new fortress palace opposite it was constructed. It re- mains an open question why Salimgarh was chosen as the pre-Shahjahani Delhi resi- dence of the Mughals and not the Purana Qilc'a — the first citadel of the Mughals at Delhi — which would have been much closer to Humayun’s tomb and that of Nizam al-Din, both of which were fixed stations of the impe- rial visit. One of the reasons could have been the proximity of Salimgarh to the river wrose bank by this time had perhaps moved alrea- dy away from the Purana Qil'a, Another possible reason is that already in the later eign of Akbar “even is this latest Celhi [namely that of Humayun and Sher Shah Sur]now for the most part in ruins, The cemete- ries are, however, populous.” It is also possible that Jahangir felt an affinity to Salimgarh (‘Fort of Salim") because of his ‘own given name (ism) Salim.’ Whatever the reasons may have been, Jahangir's choice of Salimgarh as the imperial residence seems to have set a precedent which Shah Jahan followed by building his own palace and new city right opposite it. That Salimgarh might have been the decisive factor for the selec- tion of the site of Shah Jahan’s palace has so far not been considered by Mughal histo- rians.> Salimgarh as a time-honoured impe- rial residence managed to hold its own even in the planning of Shahjahanabad; this is ap- parent from a look at the map of Shah Ja- han’s Red Fort. The intended ideal of a per- fect geometry of its plan figure as an elongated irregular octagon or oblong with chamfered corners (muthamman baghdad ) was abandoned to include Salimgarh within the lines of defense by means of a wedge- shaped extension in the enclosure wall. That such considerations were hardly dictated by antiquarian interests can be deduced from the way Shah Jahan’s builders treated other historical remains in the area. The fourteenth-century Tughlug city of Firuzabad was ruthlessy quarried for the construction of the new capital. The Tomb of Humayun The tomb of Humayun (r. 1562-71) was the first of the grand dynastic mausoleums of the Mughals and as such a major statement of Mughal rule (Fig. 4).#° The contemporary texts known so far tell us very little about the history of its construction and nothing of its purpose. However, its sheer size and its well thought-out conception which amalgamates Timurid traditions with those of the Delhi Sul- tanate leave no doubt that it was built as an architectural manifesto of the Mughals as de- scendants of Timur taking over Hindustan. Clearly it was aimed at eclipsing the earlier mausoleums of the Timurids as well as those of the Delhi sultans. What the architecture was meant to convey was still obvious to Shah Jahan’s court poet Abu Talib Kalim Ka- shani “From its podium (kursi, meaning also throne) men of vision have recognized that an enthroned one reposes here Imperial splendour (farr) emanates from it — 24 the grandeur of the building proclaims: ‘Keep, back 1% The status and significance of Humayun's tomb is borne out by the fact that from the very beginning it was treated linguistically and ceremonially like the tomb of a Muslim saint. The visit to it was termed ziyarat and included its ritual circumambulation (tawaf) and the distributions of donations and aims. These religious overtones were here di rected to the memory of the dynasty. That the cult of dynastic commemoration was eventually to super sede the religious one was already presaged in the time of Akbar. From 1568 onwards — even before the com- pletion of Humayun’s mausoleum — Akbar’s historians refer explicitly to the emperor's visits to it while his pilgrimages to the shrines of the Delhi saints are treated in a cursory way. At times — such as in 1578 and 1581 — ‘Akbar even appears to have made the ziyarat to the tomb of his father only.? Jahangir, too, clearly gave preference to the ziyarat to the tomb of Humayun over that of Shaikh Nizam al-Din which, incidentially, is the only Delhi shrine he visited. This development culmi- nated in Shah Jahan’s reign when the tomb ‘of Humayun was unambigously declared “the most noble and august among the sacred places of that land,"* and finally it alone came to represent the pilgrimage part of the imperial visiting scheme. For Shah Jahan, who placed much emphasis on dynastic themes in his artistic en- terprises, Humayun's tomb as the first monu- mental mausoleum of the Mughals had an additional significance. It was the yardstick by which he measured his own great mauso- eum project, the Taj Mahall. The formal con- cept of the ‘latter reaches back to that of Humayun's tomb and not to the mausoleums of his father and grandfather. The impor- tance the tomb of Humayun had for Shah Jahan is also evident from the fact that it was fone of the few — if not the only — pre- ‘Shahjahani building on which the court poet Kalim was allowed to shower his praises in his versified history of the emperor's reign. The Shrine of Shaikh Nizam al-Din Auliya The shrine of Shaikh Nizam al- Din Auliya, the great Chishti saint of Delhi, has been and still is one of the most revered places in Delhi.» The importance accorded to the tombs of Sufi shaikhs is a well known aspect of Indo-Muslim piety. It was believed that a measure of the barakat (spiritual charisma and power) of the saint persisted in his tomb to which those who required his intercession would resort. The imperial Mughal ritual of pil ‘ages to Chishti dargahs reflected the speci- fic relationship between Sufi shaikhs and Kings as exponents of worldly and spiritual power, which was already an object of conti- uous’ reflexion and discussion during the Delhi Sultanate. Of the Mughals it was Akbar in particular who expressed reverence to the saints of the Chishtiyya as the most renowned Sufi order on the subcontinent. Not only was this moti vated by his personal religious conviction but it also increased his prestige and secured a broader support for his rule.” His attitude found a striking architectural expression in the construction of his suburban residence Fatehpur Sikri near the Dargah of Shaikh Salim Chishti. As already pointed out, spec- ial emphasis was also placed on his pilgrim- ages to the shrine of Shaikh Mu‘in al-Din Chishti at Aimer which acquired the cha- racter of public acts. By visiting and supporting the tombs of Chishti shaikhs, Akbar's successors conti- nued to seek their blessings and to associate themselves with their spiritual power. However, we can observe dynamic changes in the patronage of shrines. In the case of the Dargah of Nizam al-Din Auliya we noted a distinct withdrawal of Mughal imperial pa- tronage reflected in the practice of its ritual visits which always entailed substantial donations. Humayun’s tomb — as the sh- rine of dynastic commemoration — even- tually took the place of the tomb of the shaikh although initially the very site of its construc- i nificantly “determined by the presence of the Chishti tomb. For Shah Jahan the ziyarat to the tomb of Nizam al-Din was the station in the visiting programme of Delhi which was most easily omitted. That eventually he even made a point of not going there can be deduced from the emperor's Delhi visit of 1645. Before marching from ‘Agra to the north in connection with his Balkh ‘and Badakhshan campaign, Shah Jahan had planned to make a pilgrimage to the shrine of Shaikh Muin al-Din Chishti at Ajmer that he had vowed for the restoration of the health of his daughter Jahanara, who was only then recovering from burns received in the pre- vious year. However, because her condition worsened again after the imperial train had reached Fatehpur Sikri and visited the dar- 25 gah there, Shah Jahan gave up the idea of Continuing to Ajmer and proceeded from the- re directly to Delhi. Even though he hac not fulfilled his promised pilgrimage he would not make up for this omission with a visit to the tomb of Nizam al-Din.«° On the non-imperial level however the sh- rine of Nizam al-Din continued to receive ‘Mughal patronage also during Shah Jahan's reign. A major reconstruction of the saint’s tomb was undertaken in 1652-53 by Shah Jahan’s governor of Delhi, Khalil Allah Khan. The Dargah again received more im- Perial attention when it became one of the burial places of the Mughals in their \ater days, after they had given up building monumental dynastic mausoleums.*' On the level of popular religion the Dargah re- mained a focus of continuous attraction up to the present day. The Hunting Ground of Palam and its Minar The hunting ground in the pargana of Palam near Delhi was one of the established hunt- ing grounds (shikargah-i mugarrar, saidgah-i ‘mugarrar) of the Mughal emperors, certainly from the days of Akbar. Especially from Jahangir's reign onwards the hunt at Palam became a prominent station in Mughal impe- rial visits to Delhi. As noted above, the descriptions of his hunts at Palam take up more space in Jahangir's memoirs than any other aspect of his Delhi visits. That the hunt of Palam was also the most important station of a Delhi visit for Shah Jahan is borne out by ‘nayat Khan's Shah Jahan nama. in this abridged history of Shah Jahan the hunt of Palam is the only station of a Delhi visit which the author considers worth mentioning, al- though in 1647/48 he does report on the con- struction of the new palace of Shahjahana- bad.® Some Shahjahani authors credit Jahangir with the conception of the palace of Palam; the stylistic evidence which points decisively to the early 1630s shows, however, that the actual construction was undertaken by Shah Jahan.# The most outstanding surviving feature of the now al- most entirely ruined complex is a hunting tower (now named Hashtsal Minar) modelled after the lowest stage of the famous Qutb Minar built during the end of the twelfth and the early part of the thirteenth century as a visible sign of the establishment of Muslim ule in northern India. The fact that Shah Jahan had his hunting tower built in the sha- pe of the Qutb Minar invites various explana-tions. An interpretation which comes readily to mind is that Shah Jahan felt that an impe- rial visit to Delhi should also include its oldest landmark and since the original was out of his way he had it recast on a smaller scale in his favourite station of a Delhi visit. At the same time one has to bear in mind that such conscious allusions to the Qutb Minar are part of an architectural tradition which can also be observed at Delhi both prior to and after the construction of the Hashtsal Minar. | have attempted to show elsewhere that such references to the first building of Islam at Delhi clearly had a political meaning, namely to symbolize architecturally the continuity of Muslim rule.* | also suggested that by copy- ing the Qutb Minar for the purpose of a hunt- ing tower Shah Jahan wanted to say more. The tower intended to demonstrate that the emperor's hunting served no frivolous pur- ose but that he performed here the duties of ‘a just Muslim king. According to the Mughal theory of kingship — patterned on ancient Persian models — the hunt of the ruler sym- bolized in a general sense his power to over- ‘come the forces of evil, often meant in a poli- tical sense. Ina more specific argument the hunt was defended as a means to know about the condition of the subjects and to ad- minister justice on the spot without any inter- mediaries. In other words, hunting was to serve the purpose of winning over the sub- jects by peaceful means. The hunting tower in the form of the Qutb Minar — the symbol of the establishment of Muslim rule at Delhi — was thus meant to demonstrate that Shah Jahan as a just Muslim king also conquered his subjects, however, not by physical force —as his forerunners, the first sultans of Del- hi — but by actions of good government.°* in the context of Mughal imperial visits to Delhi the tower and palace represent Shah Jahan’s ‘own architectural expression of a. tim honoured station in the programme. in summary, we must call to mind that the literary sources transmit us only the facts but not the significance of the pattern of these imperial visits. However, the conclusions which can be drawn from these facts are evi- dent. If we recapitulate the historical signifi- cance of each place visited we realize that each one represented a particular link of the Mughals with Deihi’s past. Each location stood for a particular aspect of the historical relationship of the Mughals with Delhi. Salim- garh represented the residential topos, Humayun’s tomb the dynastic one, the shrine of Nizam al-Din stood for religion and spi- 28 ritual power, and the Hashtsal Minar illus- trated rulership. In moving from one of these great historical places to the other the empe- ror spread a network of Mughal presence ‘over the past of Delhi creating thereby a Mughal map of the city. This selective way of emphasizing the urban landscape of Delhi was a source of legitimation. It was intended to underline the contention that the Mughals not merely continued the Sultanate rule but ‘surpassed it in their own ways. The ritual in- corporation of the past in an urban context was focused on Delhi as the first capital of Muslim rule in India — we do not get reports of such visits for any of the other Mughal cities. With the construction of Shajahana- bad the pattern of ritual imperial movements began to dissolve and was eventually no longer reported after the city’s completion. By building his own city Shah Jahan again made Delhi the capital of the empire and its past was integrated into the day-to-day Mughal present. Ebba Koch THE QUTB MINAR1 J.L, Wescoat Jr., Michael Brand and Naeem Mi, dons, Roads and Legendary Tunnels: The Underground Memory of Mughal Lahore,” Journal of Historical Geogra- phy. 17, 1 (1981): p 2 "the method of focusing on individual buildings only Tosses which ‘hip can lead to lrreparable.dam- ‘age whien put into practice. [have in mind here the British ‘conservation policy towards Mughal monuments after the Mutiny of 1857 when for instance in the Red Fort of Delhi ‘only the main pavilions were left stancing as samples of the architecture. similar fate was envisaged for tho two called today Machchhi Bhawan and Angurl Bagh in the Red Fort of Agra: “Enough will be let to lius- the various styles of the buildings, though their com- form and outlines will no longer be traceable.” W. “Buildings of Archaeological interest in the Fort of ‘Observations by His Honor the Lioutenant- 1m Provinces,” in Selections from the Records of Government, North Western Provinces, Second Series, vol. ti, Alahabad, 1870, p. 71. Fortu- nately, the planned demolition of these unique residential ‘Not carried out ‘Shahjananabad: The Sovereign City in ‘major form of evidence.” (p. 26). This Is particularly ob- ‘ious from his treatment of the Red Fort which is based fn the,descriptions of Shah Jahan's historians Warith and Kanbo! in several ‘these are however not cor- ‘of @ planned publication of 1e whole palace architecture of Shah Jahan. | have deait ‘arlior with the palace of Palam, in particular with its hunting tower, in “The Copies of the Qutb Minar,” Iran, 28 $1999), pp. 96-107. 5 Tho status of Shahjahanabad is reflected by a change of titles of the two metropoles. Agra had to cede its title Dar al Khilata ("Seat of the Caliphate” io imperial ro dence) to Shanjahanabad and was now adressed as Khilafa. which gives a similar: meaning, led Abode of the Caliphate”. See in particu: lar Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Tawavikf-i Shahjafan, Pers. MS. BL, Or. 174 fl. 15v (156v). I thank Dr. . M. Yunus datfery for assisting me in the reading and translation of ‘he Petsian texts used in this article, For the effect of the move on Agra see Blake, op. cit... 3, p. 102. 2°50 far there is no assessment of the imperial Mughal visits to Delhi. The issue has been broached only by S.P. Blake “Cityscape of an Imperial Captal: Shanjahanabad in 1739," in Delhi Through the Ages, ed. RE. Fryken- ‘berg, Delhi, 1986, p. 154, who adduces only two impar ‘Mughal visits to the tombs of the Delhi saints to support fis claim that *For the Muslims of the mid-seventoanth century the Daini area ‘of pilgtimags, and one of the most important sites inthe ‘Subcontinent for pious Muslims.” Blake even goes so far ‘38 suggesting that these two imperial visits (one of Akbar in 1576 and one of Shah Jahan in 1634) wore probably {at all prove right for Jahangir and Shah Jahan. At the Same time it mill emarge that the gestures of the empe- Fors did not necessarily coincide with those of visitors to the shrines who belonged to other social levels. 7 Such references to Baghdad as the classical capital of, the “Abbasid Caliphate aro a standard theme in Mughal ‘writing: they had ta ilustrate the contention thatthe capitals Of the Mughals surpassed even the Calighal one 5 The Mughals reserved the tile “Shah for themselves, This is why the rulers of t Mug “Khan” and not as "Shah" as they designated themselves. ‘The same holds true for the rulere of the Deccan’ Sul tanates +m quotations from Persian texte | have used the Mughal speling of Delhi 1 Literally “royal coun"; in India, a place or complex where the shrine of a Muslim (Suf) saints situated. The term corresponds also to Khanaga, which designates a hospice or'a dervish's convent Muhammad Salih Kanbo, “Amal! Salih or Shah Jahan nama, rev. Pers. txt ed. Wahid Quraishi, based on tha Calcuita od., 1912-46, by Ghulam Yazdani, 2nd ed., vol. Lahore, 1867, pp, 518-18. Ct. "Abd al.’ Hamid Lahori, Baghshah nama, Pers. text ed. Kabir al-Din Ahmad and Abd al-Rahim, vo./2, Calcutta, 1868-72, p. 6, who calls Salimgarh "Nurgarh", for which see also’ note 38 below. "© Zahir al-Din Muhammad Babur, Babur name, trans. A. s. 1921, rpt. New Dslhi, 1970, pp. 475-76 1nd In ‘subsequent quotations’ | have Kept to the transliteration and spelling of the respective translators; have, Nowever, writen out their abbreviations. Zain Khan, Tabagat-/ Babur, trans. S. Hasan Askari, fannot. 8. P. Ambastha, Delhi, 1982, pp. 92-93, "As one example of many’ quote aruba of Umar Khayyam in a translation kindly provided by Salyid Ghu- am Samnans trom Dr. Zakir Husain College (formerly Dal- hi College) “On the turret of the palace which rose to high Where kings and emperors prostrate did lle | saw there perched a ring-dove which ‘Where-to, where-to, where-to' did cry.” ‘The theme is particularly popular in adab iterature (mir- rors of princes); for its use in Akbar epigraphy see note 23 below, wal” which is @ misreading for road where remains of 1S The tranelation has “ “Bach piled under the supervision of J. F. Blakiston, Calcutta, 1922, p. 32. "6 Abu! Fazi Alam, Akbar nama, vol. trans, H. Beve- ridge, 1889, 2nd rt. Del, 1879, p. 922 7 €kbd al-Qadie Bada'uni, Muntakhad al-Tawarikh, vol. I, trans. W. H. Lowe, 2nd. ed., 1825, rpt. Deli, 197, p im al-Din Afi, Tabagat-| Akbar, ol. 1838, pp. 507 f Bada‘uni, as above. ‘8 Jahangir, Tuzuk trans. A. Rogers. ed. H. Beveridge vol. |, 2nd. ed, 1909-14, rt. Delhi. 1966, p. 137. Jahangi eters to Shakin Farid with his lator tle "Murtaza Khan 5 “akbar nama, see N16 above, vol. i pp. 312-13, 411, 424, 489, S117) voll, pp. 154, $22, 360, 547, 705, m 2 Akbar nama, see n. 16 above, vol. I, p. 489. % ipidom, pp. 811-12. 2 See above ns. 13. 14. On a later occasion, during his ‘Deccan campaign of 1600-01, Akbar was to eiaborate on this gesture by putting up commemorative inscriptions at ‘Prominent sites of the conquered Faruai kings of Khan- Sesh as well a6 of the sultans of Malwa. All wer osed by his post and calligrapher Nami quote the first {Wo lines of the inseription on one of the CAGil Shahitombs at Burhanpur reported by S.A. Rahim, “Some More Inscriptions from Khandesh,” Epigraphia Indica: Arabic ‘and Persian Supplement, 1962, pp. 74-78: “Have a look at those who are in the graves (..) and take ‘exampl {dence of the Malwa sultans — in the Mughal pleasure house Nikant: “His Majesty, the shadow of God, the king Akbar after hhaving conquered the Deccan and Khandes set out for Hing {=Indo-Gangetic plain] in the year 1008 (1600-1); ‘composed by Nam ‘At cawn | saw an ow! sitting on the pinnacte of Shirwan Shah's tomo Piaintivaly it uted the warning, ‘Where land where all that splendour ?” J. Horovitz, “Inscriptions of Dhar and Mandu, Epigraphia ‘The rellective the- all that glory #Tuzuk, see n. 18 above, vol. |, pp. 57-58. 5 Tuzuk, vol. I p. 137. 8 Tuzuk, vol. i pp. 108 © Ibidem, pp. 199-96, % Ibidem, p. 218. 5 Ibidem, pp. 2671 50 Lahor, see n. 11 above, vol. V2, pp. 6, 72-79: i, pp. 110-125 ef. Kanbo, YON I pp, 818418, ti, 1967. pp, 66, 245, 3 Lahort, soe ni 1¥ above, vol. pp. 319-20, 410; Kanbo,, seen. 11 above, vol I pp. 814 (does not mention Palam), 351 82 Kanbo, seen. 11 above, vol. Il, 1972, p.19-14; ct. Munamma Warith, B.L. Pers MS. fol. 382° v, unpubl lyped transcript 5. M. Yunus sJatfery, pp. 26-27. 3°See n. 11 above; for a brief but informative Risiory see ‘Keene's Handbook for Visitors to Dein, re-written and brought up to date by . A. Duncan, éth ed., Calcutta, 1906, pp. 18-20. CI. Zatar Hasan, seen. 15 above, vol. I, P. ‘2uthor however considers Salim: rh's role as imperial Mughal residence, Tuzuk, 800 n. 19 above, vol, p. 137. For the Persian text see the edition of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Aligarh, oes. p. 5. 38 See Jahanglr’s and _Kanbo's description quoted Kanbo omits 10 mention that Salimgarh was for Some time in the possession of Shaikh Farid, perhaps not fo blur the imperial connotation of tho plact 58 Today Salimgarn is withthe Indian Army and not easily accessible. ! was allowed to survey it in 1980 and found ‘no remains of the Jahangir structures with the exception ff a small ruined mosque of the one-aisled three-bayed Delhi type in the north-west of the fortress. Jahangir’ bridge was replaced by two bridges during the British pe riod but t can stil be seen. Jahangir's inscription comme: Imorating the construction of the bridge was removed to the museum in the Red Fort. See Y. K. Bukhari, ns tions from the Archaeological Museum, Red Fort, Deh Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1959 fand 1960, pp. 11-12 ST'abu' Fa Alla, Ain Akbari, vol. trans. H. S Jarrett, 2nd. od., corrected and further annotated by J Sarkar, 1949, rpi New Delhi, 1978, p. 264 58 We know from Jahangir hiisolf that he attached great lmportance to such associations. He had a number of laces and buildings named or re-named to connect them ‘with his lagab (honorific name) Nur al-Din. See Tuzuk, n mit above 49 above, vol |, pp: 269; vol. I, pp. 75,181, 164, 192. 226. ‘These included Salimgarh which was re-named Nurgarh. ‘3 'Salmgarh as imperial Mughal residence is not even consi- ‘dered inthe mast recont work on the subject by SP. Blake, ‘Shahjahanabed, see n.3 above, p. 12; on tis Map 5, Jahan ‘i's Bridge is shown in the wrong tcation. The author no ‘lects not only Salmgarh but also the whole question ot the Felevance of Dah forthe Mughals prior tothe construction of Shahjahanabad (pp. 26:20). “2° The most useful work on the tomb of Humayun i stil, S.A.A. Naqvi, Doli: Humayun's Tomb and Adjacent Buld- Ings, Delhi, 1848, For a more recent treatment see 6.0. Lowry, “Humayun's Tomb: Form, Function, and Mes in Early Mughal Architecture", Mugarnas, 4, 1987. pp. 148, For a new biel assessmant in particular with ¥ {lis Timurid connections see Ebba Koch, Mughal Arehi- tecture: An Outline ofits History and Development (1526- 1868), Munich, 1991, pp. 44-45, 4 Abu Talib Kalim Kashani, Badshah nama, Pers. MS... British Library {India Office Library and Records), Ethé 1870, fol.37 r, unpubl, typed transcript S. M. Yunus Jaf ‘ry. pp. 89-60. Kalim's pootical appraisal of the tomb of, Humayun which occurs In the description of Shan Janan's ancestors has as yet not been considered in any ‘Teat- ‘ment of the mausoleum, *2°Se0 n. 20 above, in particular vol. ll, pp. 360, 547. ‘© Kanbo, see n. tt above. The dominant position of Humayun's tomb is also reflected by its impact 01 the ‘surrounding urban landscape. See G.D. Lowry, “Delhi in the 16th Century," Environmental Design, 1, 1983, in pa ticular p. 16 1 Se0\n, 41 above “© For a detalied description ofthe whole dargah comple ‘see Zatar Hasan, A Guide fo Nizamu-d Din, Memov of the ‘Archaeological Survey of India, vol. 10, Calcutta, 1922. For 42 recent consideration of Shaikh Nizam al-Din $08 Simon, Digby, “Tabarrukat and Succession among the Great CChishii Shaykh ofthe Dehli Suttanate", in Beth through the Ages, od. FLE. Frykenberg, Delhi, 1986, pp. 63108. © See Zafar Hasan, above, pp. 1-6; most recently Simon Digby, “The Sufi Shaykh and the Sultan: A Confict of Claims to Authority in Medieval Inia," an, 28, pp, 71-81 For a useful brief exposition of the relationship be- tween Akbar and the Chishtiyya see D. E. Sreusand, The Formation of the Mughal Empire, Osi, 1989, pp. 2-91, ‘with furthor erature. However, | would not lke to quote from this work without pointing out Its exceedingly based approach towards Indian scholarship in particular ‘The shit in financial support is clearly reflected ty the tecords of Shah Jahan’s donations made on the occasion of his ziyarats. In 1684 the Dargah received 5,000 rupies land Hunayun's tomb an unspecified amount. From 1695 ‘onwards however the donation of 5,000 rupios was given to Humayun's tomb while the Dargah recelved only one ‘more donation of 2,000 rupies in 1638 after which F was ‘no longer visited by Shan Jahan. See the passages Quoted in n. 30 above. 3 12 n. 11 above, vol. I, pp. 407-10 59 Zafar Hasan, see n. 45 above, in particular p. “3. sd. WE. Begley and Z.A, Desai, 322, 403 F fh Jahan's hunting palace — in the texts as being located “in the pargana of alam” — withthe remains ofa palace and a minar inthe village Hashteal next to Utam Nagar on the. Delhi. NNalatgarh Road, some 5 km. north-west of present day alam. Soe my “The Copies of tho Qutb Minar", n. 4 above, pp. 95-87, 102, 106 n. 52. 5 Ibidem, pp. 95-107. idem, pp. 101-102,