No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Approaching the Mughal Past in Indian Art Criticism: The case of MARG (1946 –1963)*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2012
Abstract
The paper examines the model value of the Mughal period in MARG, the leading art journal of 1940s and 1950s India. It combines a discussion of some of the key historiographical questions of Indian art history and the role played by specific art historians, including European exiles who were among the contributors to the journal, with broader questions on the interaction of national cultural identity with global modernism. In this context, the Mughal period—celebrated in MARG for its synthesis of foreign and indigenous styles—was consistently put forward as an example for contemporary artists and architects. From its inception in 1946 until the 1960s the review favoured a return to the spirit of India's prestigious artistic past, but not to its form. Its editorials and articles followed a clearly anti-revivalist and cosmopolitan line. It aimed at redressing misunderstandings that had long undermined the history of Indian art and surmounting the perceived tensions in art and architecture between a so-called Indian style and a modern, international one.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012
Footnotes
*
Research for this paper was conducted during an Arts and Humanities Research Council fellowship at the John W. Kluge Center of the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Additional research in India was supported by the Smuts Memorial Fund. The author thanks Jean Michel Massing, Joya Chatterji, Ricardo Soares de Oliveira, and Shanay Jhaveri for their comments; as well as Radhika Sabavala of the MARG Foundation and Sunil and Arjun Janah for their permission to reproduce images.
References
1 A series of portfolios by Burnier started with Daniélou, A. (1947). ‘An Approach to Hindu Erotic Sculpture’, MARG, 2:1, pp. 79–92Google Scholar. See also Guha-Thakurta, T. (2004). Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial India, Permanent Black, New Delhi, pp. 259–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Greater Bombay, see Koenigsberg, O. (1947). ‘The Greater Bombay Scheme’, MARG, 2:1, pp. 28–36Google Scholar, and MARG's special issue ‘Bombay: Planning and Dreaming’, MARG, 18:3 (1965).
2 See the special issue ‘In Praise of Buddhist Art in Cambodia, Champa, Laos, Siam and Borobudur’, MARG, 9:4 (1956). On Greater India and the art historian Orhendra Coomar Gangoly, see Bayly, S. (2004). ‘Imagining “Greater India”: French and Indian Visions of Colonialism in the Indic Mode’, Modern Asian Studies, 38:3, pp. 703–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Special issue ‘Documentary Films of India’, MARG, 13:3 (1960); Ray, S. (1978). ‘What is Wrong with Indian Films?’ in Ray, S. Our Films, their Films, 1992 Edition, Disha Books, Hyderabad, p. 24. On Zils’ enigmatic origins, see Vidal, D. (2003). ‘La Migration des images: histoire de l'art et cinéma documentaire’, L'Homme, 165, pp. 249–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 ‘Some Contemporary Artists’, MARG, 4:3 (1950), p. 34. Elsewhere Ratan Parimoo stated that: ‘Like the two Europeans, Leyden and Fabri, Mulk Raj Anand was the first Indian critic to feel at home with both the past and present art of India.’ Parimoo, R. (1997). ‘Publications, Magazines, Journals, Polemics: Supportive Critical Writing from Charles Fabri to Geeta Kapur’, Conference proceedings: ‘Fifty Years of Indian Art: Institutions, Issues, Concepts and Conversations’, Mohile Parikh Centre for Visual Arts, National Centre for the Performing Arts, Mumbai, 66Google Scholar.
5 Whether the Mughal period achieved a true synthesis or only a superficial one has been a point of contention among historians of India and is of particular importance for discussions on the decline of the Mughal period. See Alam, M. and Subrahmanyam, S. (eds) (1998). The Mughal State, 1526–1750, Oxford University Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar; and Alavi, S. (ed.) (2002). The Eighteenth Century in India, Oxford University Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar.
6 On Coomaraswamy, see Guha-Thakurta, T. (1992). The Making of a New Indian Art: Artists, Aesthetics and Nationalism in Bengal, c. 1850–1920, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 166.Google Scholar On the debate between an Indian and a modern style in architecture, see Lang, J., Desai, M. and Desai, M. (1997). Architecture and Independence: the Search for Identity-India, 1880 to 1980, Oxford University Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar.
7 Khilnani, S. (1998). The Idea of India, Farrar Straus Giroux, New Delhi.Google Scholar
8 These include: Mitter, P. (1977). Much Maligned Monsters: A History of European Reactions to Indian Art, Clarendon Press, Oxford; Chandra, P. (1983).Google ScholarOn the Study of Indian Art, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Asher, C. B. and Metcalf, T. R. (eds) (1994). Perceptions of South Asia's Visual Past, Oxford and IBP, DelhiGoogle Scholar; Pelizzari, M. A. (2003). Traces of India: Photography, Architecture, and the Politics of Representation, 1850–1900, Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar; Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects, Histories.
9 See, for example, Asher and Metcalf, Perceptions of South Asia's Visual Past. On village India, see Inden, R. (1990). Imagining India, 2001 Edition, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 131–61.Google Scholar
10 On Chughtai, see Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters, pp. 335; Dadi, I. (2010). Modernism and the Art of Muslim South Asia, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, pp. 46–92Google Scholar.
11 Goetz repudiates the tripartite reading of Indian history as an old-fashioned idea expounded by E. B. Havell. It can, however, be found in the writing of Vasudev Saran Agrawala, head of the Department of Ancient Indian Art and Architecture at Banaras Hindu University from 1951. See Goetz, H. (1947). ‘Art: Whither Indian Art?’, MARG, 1:2, pp. 58, 66Google Scholar; Agrawala, V. S. (1950). ‘Lalit Kala’, MARG, 4:2, pp. 2–14Google Scholar; Agrawala, V. S. (1951). ‘Rupa-Sattra’, MARG, 5:2, pp. 45–50Google Scholar.
12 Thapar, R. (1991). All these Years: A Memoir, Seminar Publications, New Delhi, p. 57.Google Scholar
13 Bald, S. R. (1974). ‘Politics of a Revolutionary Elite: A Study of Mulk Raj Anand's Novels’, Modern Asian Studies, 8:4, p. 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Anand, M. R. (1945). Apologies for Heroism: A Brief Autobiography of Ideas, Lindsay Drummond, LondonGoogle Scholar; and Anand, M. R. (1981). Conversations in Bloomsbury, Wildwood House, LondonGoogle Scholar, on his years in England.
14 Dalmia, Y. (2001). The Making of Modern Indian Art: The Progressives, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p. 57.Google Scholar
15 Lewis, R. J. (1985). ‘Review’, The Journal of Asian Studies, 44:2, pp. 415–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Bald, ‘Politics of a Revolutionary Elite’, p. 480.
17 MARG: Modern Architectural Research Group, MARG, 1:1 (1946).
18 MARG: Modern Architectural Research Group, MARG, 1:1 (1946).
19 ‘Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit’, MARG, 17:1 (1963), p.2.
20 ‘Architecture and You’, MARG, 1:1 (1946), p.12, 13.
21 ‘Architecture and You’, MARG, 1:1 (1946), p.15.
22 Kapur, J. C. (1954). ‘Air Conditioning’, MARG, 7:3, pp. 2–5Google Scholar, 68. See also the first issue of Lalit Kala Contemporary for which Anand served as guest editor. Anand, M. R. (1962). ‘Birth of Lalit Kala’, Lalit Kala Contemporary, 1, p. 3.
23 Mitter, P. (1994). Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1852–1922: Occidental Orientations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 120–24.Google Scholar
24 See, for example, Anand, M. R. ‘George Keyt: Artist in Simplicity’, The Illustrated Weekly of India, 23 March 1947, p. 17; and De Silva, Anil. ‘Rathin Moitra and the Calcutta Group’, The Illustrated Weekly of India, 27 April 1947, p. 54.Google Scholar
25 See Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters; Tartakov, G. M. (1994). ‘Changing Views of India's Art History’ in Asher and Metcalf, Perceptions of South Asia's Visual Past.
26 Goetz, H. (1951). ‘A Landmark in Indian Art History’, MARG, 5:2, p. 41.Google Scholar
27 ‘On the Study of Indian Art’, MARG, 1:2 (1947), p. 19. Smith's famous statement was already quoted in Coomaraswamy, A. K. (1909). Essays in National Idealism, Colombo Apothecaries, Colombo, p. 91.Google Scholar
28 Anand, M. R. (1953). ‘The Dust of Prejudice’, MARG, 7:1, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar On Smith, Birdwood, Havell, Coomaraswamy, and the writing of the history of Indian art, see Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters, pp. 252–86.
29 In other contexts the idea of equilibrium could serve agendas that were, in reality, far from impartial. For example, at the Ninth Indian Historical Congress held in Agra in December 1956, K. M. Munshi deployed this popular idea to criticize Marxist historians, saying that Indian historians had to rewrite Indian history from the Indian point of view but without any partisanship and that a balance should be struck between the narrowness of British historians and the overglorification of Indian writers. (1957). Munshi, K. M. (1957). ‘Rewriting Indian History’, The Modern Review, 101:2, p. 104Google Scholar; see also Singhal, D. P. (1963). ‘Re-writing Indian History’, The Modern Review, 114:2, pp. 143–49.Google Scholar
30 Quoted in Zitzewitz, K. (2003). The Perfect Frame: Presenting Modern Indian Art (Stories and Photographs from the Collection of Kekoo Gandhy), Chemould Publications and Arts, Mumbai, p. 26.Google Scholar
31 This situation is decried in ‘On the Study of Indian Art’, p. 82; ‘Museums, Junk Shops or Living Culture Centres?’, MARG, 2:4 (1948), pp. 4–8; ‘Inauguration of the National Art Treasure Fund: Translation of the Presidential Speech in Hindi of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Education Minister, delivered on 23rd Feb. 1952 and Speech by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on the Same Occasion’, MARG, 5:4 (1952), p. 45; Goetz, H. (1954). ‘Problems of Art Display’, MARG, 7:2, pp. 2–7Google Scholar. See also Sheikh, G. (2005). ‘Mulk and MARG’ in Garimella, A. (ed.) Mulk Raj Anand, Shaping the Indian Modern, Marg Publications, Mumbai, p. 55.Google Scholar
32 See Driberg, T. (1948). ‘Art in Bombay’, MARG, 2:2, p. 64Google Scholar; ‘Italian Exhibition’, MARG, 2:3 (1948), p. 59; ‘Traveling Print Exhibition’, MARG, 4:3 (1950), p. 50; ‘Exhibitions: Art Chronicle, 1st Quarter 1951’, MARG, 5:1 (1951), p. 66; Kapur, G. (1978). Contemporary Indian Artists, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, p. 52Google Scholar.
33 ‘Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit’, p. 2; Irwin, J. (1953). ‘The Mogul Gallery at the Victoria and Albert Museum’, MARG, 7:1, p. 23–26Google Scholar; ‘Letter to an Englishman’, MARG, 2:2 (1948), pp. 4–9.
34 Garimella, ‘Introduction’ in Garimella, Mulk Raj Anand, p. 18.
35 Gandhy, K. (2003). The Beginnings of the Art Movement, Seminar, 528: <http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/528/528%20kekoo%20gandhy.htm>, [accessed 1 September 2010]. See also Thapar, All these Years, p. 118.
36 On the crisis that affected German and Austrian Orientalistik after the First World War, see Marchand, S. L. (2009). German Orientalism in the Age of Empire, 2010 Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 474–98Google Scholar. On Goetz's biography, see Bhowmik, S. K. (ed.) (1978–79). ‘Reflections on Indian Art and Culture’, Museum Bulletin, special issue, 28; Deppert, J. (1983). India and the West: Proceedings of a Seminar Dedicated to the Memory of Hermann Goetz, Manohar, New Delhi.Google Scholar
37 He defined his enterprise as a ‘chronological aid’ [ein chronologisches Hilfsmittel]. Goetz, H. (1924). ‘Kostüm und Mode an den Indischen Fürstenhöfen in der Groszmoghul-Zeit’, Jahrbuch der Asiatischen Kunst, 1:1, p. 67.Google Scholar The article is a summary of his doctoral thesis. See also Goetz, H. (1950). ‘Decline and Rebirth of Medieval Indian Art’, MARG, 4:2, pp. 36–48Google Scholar.
38 Goetz, H. (1951). ‘A Controversy: The Problem of the Classification and Chronology of Rajput Painting and the Bikaner Miniatures’, MARG, 5:1, pp. 17–21Google Scholar; Khandalavala, K. (1958). ‘Eighteenth Century Mughal Painting (Some Characteristics and some Misconceptions)’, MARG, 11:4, pp. 58–61Google Scholar.
39 Anand, M. R. (1977). ‘In Memory of Hermann Goetz’, MARG, 31, Supplement no. 1Google Scholar, p. v. See also Kulke, H. ‘Life and work of Hermann Goetz’ in Deppert, India and the West, p. 14.
40 ‘Renaissance or Revival’, MARG, 3:1 (1949), pp. 4–14; ‘Planning and Dreaming’, MARG, 1:1 (1946), pp. 3–6. ‘Neo-Magadha’ is a reference to revivalist architect Sris Chandra Chatterjee's Magadha Architecture and Culture (1942). On Chatterjee, see Lang, Desai and Desai, Architecture and Independence, pp. 131–34.
41 ‘Art: Whither Indian Art?’, pp. 64–65.
42 Havell, E. B. (1912). ‘The Building of New Capitals’, The Modern Review, 12:1, pp. 1–5Google Scholar; Mitter, Art and Nationalism, p. 305; Malandra, G. H. ‘The Creation of a Past for Ajanta and Ellora’ in Asher and Metcalf, Perceptions of South Asia's Visual Past, p. 72.
43 Mitter, Art and Nationalism, p. 238.
44 Mitter, Art and Nationalism, p.380.
45 Lang, Desai and Desai, Architecture and Independence, p. 198.
46 Lang, Desai and Desai, Architecture and Independence, pp. 198, 214.
47 ‘Contemporary Architecture’, MARG, 5:4 (1952), p. 1.
48 ‘Contemporary Architecture’, p. 1.
49 ‘Renaissance or Revival’, p. 4; ‘On the Study of Indian Art’, pp. 16–17.
50 Dalmia, The Making of Modern Indian Art, p. 232.
51 ‘On the Study of Indian Art’, pp. 16–19, 81–82, 87–88.
52 See Israel, M. (1994). Communications and Power: Propaganda and the Press in the Indian Nationalist Struggle, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 156–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53 ‘Letter to an Englishman’.
54 Anand, M. R. (1953). ‘The Dust of Prejudice’, MARG, 7:1, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
55 ‘Reflections on Sculpture’, MARG, 2:1 (1947), p. 18; and Auboyer, J. (1949). ‘The Problem of Aesthetics’, MARG, 3:2, pp. 4–6, 9.Google Scholar
56 ‘Renaissance or Revival’, pp. 4–11. See also Goetz, H. (1944). ‘Modern Art in the World Crisis: The Metamorphosis from a European to a Universal Civilisation and Art’, Bulletin of the Baroda State Museum and Picture Gallery, 1:1, p. 12.Google Scholar
57 See, for example, ‘Letter to an Englishman’, p. 6; ‘Museums, Junk Shops or Living Culture Centres?’, p. 6.
58 ‘Exhibitions’, MARG, 3: 3 (1949), p. 49.
59 Quoted in Dalmia, The Making of Modern Indian Art, p. 43.
60 ‘Some Contemporary Artists’, MARG, 4:3 (1950), p. 34.
61 Gangoly, O. C. (1956). ‘Indian Painting at the Venice International’, The Modern Review, 100:5, pp. 381–84.Google Scholar
62 ‘Art: Whither Indian Art?’, p. 88. MARG also supported Souza in 1949 when obscenity charges were levelled against him.
63 Bulletin of the Baroda Picture Gallery and Museum, 4, part 1–2 (1949), p. 54.
64 Gangoly ‘omits all reference to the great tradition of architecture which sprang under the Muslims and which have given India some of her most magnificent monuments of secular as well as religious architecture’; see Singh, I. (1947). ‘Book Review of Indian Architecture by O. C. Gangoly’, MARG, 1:3, p. 82Google Scholar. Goetz and Gangoly, however, respected each other's work. Goetz invited Gangoly to speak in Baroda and Gangoly called Goetz ‘the most notable historian in Indian art’. Gangoly, O. C. and Basu, S. (1991). Rupa-Ikshana: Development of Indian Art and Culture: Autobiography of Prof. O.C. Gangoly, Sundeep Prakashan, Delhi, p. 192Google Scholar.
65 See, for example, Saraswati, K. (1948). ‘Art: Birds in Moghul Art’, MARG, 2:2, pp. 29–41Google Scholar; Gray, B. (1953). ‘Intermingling of Mogul and Rajput Art’, MARG, 6:2, pp. 36–38Google Scholar; Sarkar, J. (1955). ‘Glimpses of Mughal Architecture’, MARG, 8:3, pp. 65–72Google Scholar; Anand, M. R. (1963). ‘Reflections on the House, the Stupa, the Temple, the Mosque, the Mausoleum and the Town Plan from the Earliest Times Till Today’, MARG, 17:1, pp. 28–30Google Scholar.
66 Madan, T. N. (1993). ‘Whither Indian Secularism?’, Modern Asian Studies, 27:3, pp. 679CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 683. See also Bharghava, R. (ed.) (1998). Secularism and its Critics, Oxford University Press, New DelhiGoogle Scholar.
67 Nehru, J. (1958). ‘Emotional Integration’ in Jawaharlal Nehru's Speeches, Vol. 3, March 1953–August 1957, The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi, p. 33Google Scholar.
68 Report of the Committee on Emotional Integration, Ministry of Education, Delhi, 1962.
69 Anand, M. R. ‘Promotion of Culture’, The Times of India, 28 August 1956, p. 6. In another letter to the editor, Anand also referred to the ‘creation of political and cultural unity by Ashoka, by the Gupta Empire and later by Akbar’. See Anand, M. R. ‘National Integration’, The Times of India, 24 June 1961, p. 6.
70 One of the important advocates of the ‘composite culture’ was Humayun Kabir who held several leading positions in Nehru's cabinets, including Minister of Education and Minister of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs. See Kabir, H. (1946). The Indian Heritage, 1960 Edition, Asia Publishing House, LondonGoogle Scholar; and Chand, T. (1936). Influence of Islam on Indian Culture, The Indian Press, Allahabad. On its historiography, see Alam, J. (2006). ‘The Composite Culture and its Historiography’ in Roy, A. (ed.) Islam in History and Politics, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp. 37–46Google Scholar; !!Khan, R. (ed.) (1987). Composite Culture of India and National Integration, Institute of Advanced Study, SimlaGoogle Scholar.
71 ‘Intermingling of Mogul and Rajput Art’; ‘Art: Birds in Moghul Art’; ‘Changing Views of India's Art History’, p. 21.
72 ‘Renaissance or Revival’, p. 5.
73 See, for example, Brown, R. M. (2009). Art for a Modern India, 1947–1980, Duke University Press, Durham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74 Iqtidar, H. (2010). ‘Colonial Secularism and Islamism in North India: A Relationship of Creativity’ in Katznelson, I. and Stedman Jones, G. (eds), Religion and the Political Imagination, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 237.Google Scholar
75 See, for example, Gopal, S. (1991). Anatomy of a Confrontation: The Rise of Communal Politics in India, Zed, LondonGoogle Scholar; Gilmartin, D. and Lawrence, B. B. (2000). Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South India, University Press of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar.
76 Bayly, C. A. (1983). Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 9.Google Scholar See also Asher, C. B. and Talbot, C. (2006). India before Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 See Cohn, B. S. (1983). ‘Representing Authority in Victorian India’ in Hobsbawm, E. J. and Ranger, T. O.The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
78 Eaton, R. (2003). ‘Introduction’ in Eaton, R. (ed.) India's Islamic Tradition, 711–1750, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p. 12.Google Scholar
79 See, for example, Durrani, N. H. ‘Was Akbar a Good Muslim?’, The Dawn, 24 November 1942, p. 4.
80 Sarkar, J. (1943). ‘Unity in Spite of Diversity: An Indian Problem Solved’, The Modern Review, 73:6, pp. 417–21.Google Scholar See also ‘Akbar's Example to Modern India: Unity and Religious Tolerance’, The Times of India, 30 November 1942, p. 6; ‘Spirit of Akbar’, The Times of India, 28 November 1942, p. 6; Wadia, P. A (1943). ‘Akbar and India Today’, The Modern Review, 73:1, pp. 26–27Google Scholar.
81 Nehru, J. (1934). Glimpses of World History, 1967 Edition, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, p. 317.Google Scholar
82 Chandra, M. (1951). ‘Portraits of Ibrahim Adil Shah II’, MARG, 5:1, p. 22Google Scholar; ‘Intermingling of Mogul and Rajput Art’; ‘Glimpses of Mughal Architecture’; ‘The Master Builder’, MARG, 11:3 (1958), pp. 2–7; ‘Mughal Architecture: Synthesis of Hindu and Islamic forms: Fatehpur Sikri’, MARG, 11:3 (1958), pp. 12–20; Anand, M. R. (1958). ‘The Background of Early Mughal Painting’, MARG, 11:3, pp. 30–44Google Scholar. The Tata group still makes a direct link between patronage of the arts under Akbar and under its own aegis in post-independence India. See the article ‘Art from the Heart’ (March 2005): <http://www.tata.com/ourcommitment/articles/inside.aspx?artid=MyygciZDMf8=>, [accessed 7 July 2010].
83 Mohan, J. (1950). ‘The Significance of “Andolan”: The Story of “Our Struggle” for Freedom’, MARG, 4:3, p. 48.Google Scholar
84 Zils, P. (1950). ‘Paul Zils on his Experimental Film “Our India”’, MARG, 4:2, p. 49.Google Scholar
85 On akhlaq literature, Mughal rule, and its lasting idea of good government, see Bayly, C. A. (1998) Origins of Nationality in South Asia: Patriotism and Ethical Government in the Making of Modern India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
86 Waddington, H. and Naqvi, S. (1947). ‘Old Delhi: The Continuation of a City’, MARG, 1:2, pp. 48–56, 96.Google Scholar
87 ‘Aldous Huxley on the Taj Mahal’, MARG, 4:2 (1950), pp. 15–20.
88 Nath, R. (1987). ‘Dr Mulk Raj Anand, the Man and the Scholar: As I Know Him’, Indologica-Jaipurensia 1, pp. 3–5Google Scholar
89 ‘Fatehpur Sikri, Introductory; Historical Note’, MARG, 2:3 (1948), pp. 16–19; Terry, J. (1948). ‘Some Aspects of Fatehpur Sikri Architecture’, MARG, 2:3, pp. 20–32.
90 Brand, M. and Lowry, G. D. (1985). Akbar's India: Art from the Mughal City of Victory, The Asia Society Galleries, New York.Google Scholar See also ‘Portraits of Ibrahim Adil Shah II’, p. 22; ‘Master Builder’; ‘Mughal Architecture. Synthesis of Hindu and Islamic forms: Fatehpur Sikri’, MARG, 11:3 (1958), pp. 12–20; ‘Intermingling of Mogul and Rajput Art’, pp. 37–38; ‘Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit’, pp. 2–3.
91 See, for example, ‘Some Aspects of Fatehpur Sikri Architecture’, pp. 20–32; ‘Chandigarh: A New Planned City’, MARG, 15:1 (1961), p. 2–4.
92 Bajpai, D. (1949). ‘Jaipur: An Architectural Survey’, MARG, 3:4, pp. 18–28.Google Scholar See also ‘Intermingling of Mogul and Rajput Art’, pp. 37–38, and Chatterji, J. (1994). Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
93 ‘On Inheriting the Past’, MARG, 8:2 (1955), pp. 2–3.
94 Anand, M. R. (1977). ‘In Memory of Hermann Goetz’, MARG, 31:1, pp. iv–v.Google Scholar
95 Goetz, H. (1953). ‘Masterpieces of Mogul Painting: The Album of Emperor Jehangir’, MARG, 6:2, p. 40.Google Scholar
96 Goetz, H. (1958). ‘Later Mughal Architecture’, MARG, 11:4, p. 17Google Scholar. On decadence in Indian art, see Mitter, P. (1994). ‘“Decadence in India”: Reflections on a Much-Used Word in Studies of Indian Art’ in Onians, J. (ed.) Sight and Insight: Essays on Art and Culture in Honour of E. H. Gombrich at 85, Phaidon, London, pp. 379–97Google Scholar.
97 ‘Problems of later Mughal Art’, MARG, 11:4 (1958), pp. 42–43.
98 ‘Reflections on the House’; ‘Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit’; ‘Problems of Later Mughal Art’.
99 ‘Later Mughal Architecture’, p. 11.
100 Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters, p. 275.
101 ‘Living, Working, Care of Body and Spirit’, p. 2. Italics in the original.
102 In architecture, for example, the use of historical quotations in modernist structures, whether the grafting on of Mughal decorative motifs or the adoption of mandala-shaped plans, remains a contentious issue to this day, with architects such as Charles Correa distinguishing between ‘transformations’ and unmediated ‘transfers’. Tillotson, G. (1995). ‘Architecture and Anxiety: The Problem of Pastiche in Recent Indian Design’, South Asia Research, 15:1, p. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103 Author interview with Geeta Kapur, New Delhi, 28 March 2011; Kapur, G. (1981). ‘Partisan Views about the Human Figure’ in Place for People: An Exhibition of Paintings by Jogen Chowdhury, Bhupen Khakhar, Nalini Malani, Sudhir Patwardhan, Gulam Mohammed Sheikh, Vivan Sundaram, Jehangir Art Gallery and Rabindra Bhavan, Bombay and New DelhiGoogle Scholar, unpaginated.
104 Anand, M. R. (1968). ‘Preface’ in First Triennale India 1968, Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi, p. 5Google Scholar; see also the discourse of President Zakir Hussain reprinted in Lalit Kala Akademi Newsletter, April 1968, unpaginated.
105 See Singh, D. (2011). ‘Contextualiser l'art contemporain indien. Une Histoire des expositions de groupe de 1968 à nos jours’ in Duplaix, S. and Bousteau, F. (eds) Paris-Delhi-Bombay, Editions du Centre Pompidou, ParisGoogle Scholar, pp. 88–95. For an overview of the reception of the Triennales, see Som, S. (ed.) (1990). Lalit Kala Contemporary, no. 36.
106 On foreign artists’ engagement with India, see Jhaveri, S. (ed.) (2010). Outsider Films on India, 1950–1990, The Shoestring Publisher, BombayGoogle Scholar; Munroe, A. (ed.) (2009). The Third Mind: American Artists Contemplate Asia, 1860–1989, Guggenheim Museum, New YorkGoogle Scholar; Ananth, D. (2008). ‘Approaching India’ in Chalo India: A New Era of Indian Art, Mori Art Museum, Tokyo, pp. 269–80Google Scholar.