The Yamuna Riverfront, India: A Comparative Study of Islamic And Hindu Traditions In Cultural Landscapes

Landscape Journal 23:2–04 ISSN 0277-2426© 2004 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System Sinha and Ruggles 141

The current controversy inIndia on the construc-

tion of the Taj Heritage Corridorhas focused the spotlight on theYamuna riverfront and its future.Historians and archaeologists havegiven us a description of the six-teenth and seventeenth-centuryriverfront in Agra, but their view islargely architectural: it remainsincomplete without interpreting theMughal mode of engagement withlandscape and the indigenous cul-ture’s view of nature that shaped theYamuna riverfront. In this paper, weanalyze the visible traces of the dif-ferences between Islamic and Hindupractices and perception along theYamuna River, focusing on Agra andon Mathura and Vrindavan in the

Braj region. Although architecture ispart of this picture, our focus is noton the buildings per se, but ratheron the relationship of buildings toland and river, and the humanexperience of landscape.

In our analysis of landscapeexperience, we distinguish betweenvision, which is “the mechanism ofsight,” and visuality, which is an his-torical mode of seeing that encom-passes cultural codes and practices(Foster 1988; Jay 1993). BothHindus and Muslims employedvision in environmental design, butwhen Babur led the first Mughals toIndia from Afghanistan in the firstquarter of the sixteenth century, he

brought a specific visuality with himthat not only influenced his percep-tion of the new landscape, but alsocaused the later Mughals to shape itin ways that satisfied those culturallydetermined visual expectations.1Babur’s complaints about the disor-derly, flat, dusty Hindustani land-scape are legion, and it is wellknown that he set about changingthat landscape—in places like Agraand Dholpur—to better suit hisvisual tastes (Moynihan 1988, 1996).To some extent, Babur and hisdescendants introduced a “scopicregime” (in the words of ChristianMetz); a dominant mode of seeing(prevalent in Islamic cultureselsewhere) that emphasized theseparation of viewer and viewed(Jay 1988).2

The Yamuna Riverfront, India: A ComparativeStudy Of Islamic And Hindu Traditions In Cultural LandscapesAmita Sinha and D. Fairchild Ruggles

Amita Sinha and D. FairchildRuggles are Associate Professors inthe Department of LandscapeArchitecture at University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign. Sinhareceived her PhD in Architecturefrom University of California atBerkeley, MArch from Virginia Tech,and BArch from Indian Institute ofTechnology, Kharagpur, India. Hermajor area of research is culturallandscapes and heritage conserva-tion in South Asia. Her book,Landscapes of India: Forms andMeanings, will be published by theUniversity Press of Colorado in 2005.Ruggles received her PhD and MAfrom the University of Pennsylvaniaand her AB from Harvard. She is theauthor of Gardens, Landscape, andVision in the Palaces of Islamic Spain(2000), and editor of Women,Patronage, and Self-Representation inIslamic Societies (2000).

Abstract: Cultural traditions encompass specific modes of visuality. Islamic and Hinduways of seeing are described in terms of their inscription upon the cultural landscape ofIndia. The historic Yamuna riverfront at Agra, one-time capital of the Mughal empire, iscompared with the riverfront at Braj, sacred to the Hindus for its association with thegod Krishna. The land-water interface at Braj is marked by steps that allow access to theriver for bathing, shrines and temples for worship, and a porous architecture that facili-tates vision and movement in the public realm. In contrast, at historic Agra, the inter-face was marked by walls enclosing royal gardens, palaces, and tombs, creating privateenclaves and permitting the common residents only interstitial access to the river, if anyat all. Pavilions on riverfront terraces with gardens below framed views of the landscape,implying a separation between the viewer and the designated object. Although the riverwas the prime object of vision in both traditions, the Islamic mode of visuality was phe-nomenal presentation while the Hindu mode is iconic representation.

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 141

142 Landscape Journal

In contrast, Hindu visual prac-tice collapsed the distance. Hindusapprehended divinity in everydaylife, and deities inhabited the land-scape and built environment aroundthem so that the landscape was morethan an object of vision: it was ananimate, living being. The faithfulviewer sought transcendental union,both visually and physically, betweenhimself and the deified landscape.For this reason the Hindu andMuslim modes of visuality and expe-rience of landscape were verydifferent.

Nowhere can this be illustratedbetter than in the comparison of theYamuna riverfront in Agra with theBraj region just 40 kilometers awaywith its principal cities located onYamuna’s banks. Agra, developed bythe Mughals from 1526 CE onwards,was the capital of the Mughalempire and an Islamic dynasty thatruled over a population of bothHindus and Muslims. Braj was and isa sacred landscape, much revered bythe Hindus because of its associationwith the Krishna legend (Kinsley1975, Hawley 1983, Sinha 1994,Srinivasan 1989). Both Agra andBraj have historically been sustainedby the River Yamuna. Not only is theriver a life source, but it is also avery significant site of architecturaland religious heritage. However, theriverfront presents different imagesin the two places that reflect dissimi-lar cultural traditions and visualpractices. The land-water interface ismarked by varied social functionsand religious rituals, architecturalresponses, and landscape symbolism.

Meaning and SignificanceRising from the Yamunotri gla-

cier in the Himalayas in the TehriGarhwal district, the Yamuna flowsfor 1,380 kilometers almost parallelto the Ganga. Like other rivers inIndia, the Yamuna is sacred toHindus. Its sacrality rests upon life-giving properties of water and itsmetaphorical potential to wash awaymoral and physical pollution. Oneamong the divine triad of rivergoddesses (Ganga, Yamuna, andSaraswati) mentioned in the Rig-veda, the fame of Yamuna is secondonly to Ganga. Her status in Hindu

mythology derives from the beliefthat she is the daughter of Surya(sun god) and sister of Yama (god ofdeath). Her kinship status thus linksher with the forces of both life anddeath.

In the Braj region, theYamuna’s divinity becomes imma-nent. Her role in Krishna mythologyis crucial as animated landscape,divine consort, and idyllic pastoralsetting. For example, when theinfant Krishna’s father transportshim across the river on a dark,stormy night, the Yamuna calms her-self to ease their journey. Legendalso has it that Krishna’s olderbrother Balarama was upset atYamuna’s recalcitrance in comingwhen invited for water sports.He dragged her with a plow toVrindavan, changing her course andcausing a bend in her straight flow.Krishna’s many playful antics as ayoung boy occur on Yamuna’s banks.The defeat of serpent Kaliya ismarked by Krishna dancing on itshoods in the river. He steals theclothes of gopis (wives of cowherds)as they bathe in the river (Figure 1).Playing the flute on the Yamunabank, he entices them to come andsport with him in the groves ofVrindavan. These and other eventsalong the river are celebrated innumerous representations in worksof art through the ages: Pahariand Rajasthani paintings depict pic-turesque groves of trees on theYamuna banks where Krishna playsthe divine flute, dances with thegopis, and makes love to Radha(Randhawa 1982).

Historically, for Muslims, theRiver Yamuna has none of theseassociations. Although water has asacred dimension and is required forritual cleansing prior to prayer, it isnot deified, nor is the river distinctfrom any other body of water exceptin the sense of being a movingrather than static entity. It was usefuland therefore attractive as an arteryof transportation and as a plentifulsource for water, both of which werenecessary for Babur’s building cam-

paign favoring riverfront gardens.3This preference for riverfront realestate increased with subsequentgenerations of Mughals. BothShahjahanabad and Agra, the pri-mary Mughal political capitals, weresituated on the Yamuna’s banks, andboth were developed to take fulladvantage of the water source, easytransportation, and riverfront views.4

For the Mughals, visualityplayed itself out in the followingways. First, the riverfront gardensthat were begun in the time ofBabur were deliberately sited totake advantage of the views of theYamuna (Figure 2). Babur cravedproximity to water and vastly pre-ferred the moving water of rivers tostagnant water tanks. He built raisedterraces and enclosure walls thateffectively separated garden spacefrom river, ensuring safe refuge inflood season, as well a social separa-tion of the court from the residentsof Agra (Wescoat 1991, 1992).According to Koch (1997a), theseriverside estates were the genesis oflater palatine complexes in Agra, aswell as in Shahjahanabad andLahore.5 At the Agra Fort, built insuccessive stages between 1565–1637,the elegant pavilions such as theKhass Mahal where the emperor andhis family lived were perched highabove the river, with carefully tendedformal gardens on one side and onthe other, views from the palacewalls to the river and garden estateson the opposite bank (Figure 3).Moreover, the pavilions stood at thehighest point of the palace, elevatedfar above the river below, enhancingthe range of view and ensuring asense of separation between sub-ject/viewer and distant object. Inaddition to imperial palaces in Agra,dozens of walled gardens lined theriver. Like the imperial palace, thesewere elite enclosures; however, theywere used more informally forleisure. They lacked audience hallsand do not appear to have had aspecifically residential function.Gardens like the Ram Bagh (Bagh-iNur Afshan), Bagh-i Jahanara, andthe Mahtab Bagh as well as tombssuch as Chini-ka rauza and that ofItmad ad-Dawla were all separatedfrom the river by high protective

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 142

Sinha and Ruggles 143

retaining walls on which pavilionsgave views to the interior privategarden and the exterior publiclandscape.

Vision was enhanced in manyfeatures of Mughal architecture, andpavilions such as the Agra Fort’sShah Burj had chattris (kiosks) andprotruding balconies that offeredextensive panoramas (Figure 4). Theouter walls of the pavilions wereoften pierced by large windows withdecorative screens that teased theeye, promising yet denying the fullview of the landscape beyond(Ruggles 2003). The emperor him-self became an object within thisvisual field: he would regularlyreveal himself within the framedjharoka (balcony) window. TheMughals drew upon the Hindu con-cept of darshan—in the jharoka-i-darshan, the emperor appeared toinsinuate himself as a kind of deitywho is both the subject and objectof the gaze.6

The Mughals did not avoid theriver: indeed, it was an importantFigure 2. View from Ram Bagh. (Photograph by A. Sinha)

Figure 1. Krishna and the Gopis. (Courtesy of National Museum, New Delhi)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 143


transportation artery for them. Toreach the many gardens lining thebanks of the river across from theFort and Agra City, boats were themost practical vehicles. Sites like theTaj, the Tomb of Itmad ad-Dawla,and the Mahtab Bagh had boatlandings on level with the river.However, unlike the ghats, whichstretched horizontally along theriver and facilitated public access,these landings served as tightlyguarded gates that gave verticalaccess to terrace gardens high abovethe river.

Mode of Landscape EngagementThe Yamuna river corridor in

Braj is a very different cultural land-scape than at Agra, resulting fromdistinctly different modes of visualitythat emanated from the two respec-tive religious and cultural traditions.For the Mughals of Agra, visualitywas a means of control, of domina-tion in a spatial context. The axis ofvision separated the viewer from thelandscape, and tactile experiencewas limited to vegetation and waterin the gardens. Many of the build-ings did use the river to irrigatetheir interior gardens, but the ele-vated position of the garden andpalace pavilions kept the viewers

from going out and into the river,except for travel.

In contrast, Hindu visualitydoes not separate the visual from thephysical. For the Hindus in Braj, theYamuna’s sacrality elicits two kindsof engagement with the landscape:the visual (darshan) and the tactile(snana).

Snana is bathing, a tactilemode of engagement with the riverin which the sensation of touchingwater, being immersed in it, andemerging out of it achieves its fullestexpression through ritual valueattached to the action (Figure 5). Inbathing, one sheds papa (sin) andachieves punya (spiritual merit).Physical cleansing becomes emblem-atic of and even equivalent to moralcleansing, and one emerges out ofthe water refreshed, rejuvenated,and purified. Bathing at dawn is ritu-ally prescribed, and the act is espe-cially meaningful on festivals markedby propitious stellar constellations.Life cycle events—birth, tonsure,menstruation, weddings, anddeath—are celebrated with a holydip, marking the occasion and

cleansing the body of pollution.Snana is especially beneficial at cer-tain spots, namely, confluences ofstreams and at riverbank locations,which are sacred as sites of mythicevents.

Darshan, the Sanskrit word forseeing, is a mode of visuality inwhich vision is interactive betweenobject and viewer; indeed, the rolesof object/subject are mutually reflec-tive (Figure 6). This mode of seeingis especially suited to experience ofdivinity in person, place, or ideas.According to Diana Eck (1981)darshan is the visual perception ofthe sacred. As the ‘auspicious sight’of the divine, it means to see and beseen by the deity present in animage or a place. Thus, instead oflooking at the river as an inertobject, the river—a goddess—is ableto respond and even, conceptually,to return the gaze. This exchange ofgaze promotes a sense of well-beingin the devotee. Seeing is a reachingout, a kind of metaphorical touch-ing that involves one’s whole beingand is reciprocal.

The Experience of Landscape: BrajThe shape of the Yamuna land-

scape at Braj has evolved fromcenturies of visual and tactile engage-ment with the river. Modifica-tions that occur with continuoushuman use over time keep its essen-tial character alive, as is evident ina reading of the contemporary land-scape, much of it built in the nine-teenth century. The sacred region ofBraj is bordered by Yamuna onwhose banks are clustered the mostsignificant constellation of pilgrimsites. These include Mathura (whereKrishna was born), Vrindavan (thesite of his many adolescent trysts),and Gokul (the place of his child-hood). These riverfront sites are thedestination of pilgrims and local res-idents alike. They are experiencedboth visually and tactically.

Snana. With respect to bathingand the tactile experience, the land-water interface in sacred towns ofBraj is constituted of ghats, or steps,stretching for a long distance. Visiblydominant features in the landscape,they enable access to the water asthe river level changes. Built over a

Figure 3. Khass Mahal, Agra Fort. (Photograph by O. Reuther)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 144


period of time, their alignment isnot straight but shifts to respond tothe river and urban street network.The main function of the ghats is totake people down to the water tobathe. There are private enclaves inthe ghats—the upper stories wereoften exclusive areas owned bythe elite—but the ground floor,

which touches the river, supports aplethora of other activities that makethe riverfront spaces a truly publicrealm.

In Mathura, the ghats run forabout three kilometers, interruptedby residential buildings and shrines(Figure 7). Historically they were theentry to the city, the river being themajor artery of transportation.Parallel to the ghats runs a publicstreet, looping off from the mainbazaar. A number of city streets endon this spine, bringing human popu-lace and animals to the river. Thestretch of twenty-two steps known asVishram ghat (where Krishna andhis brother Balarma rested afterkilling and cremating their eviluncle, Kansa) is a popular spot forbathing after the performance oflife-cycle rituals and at festivals.7 Inaddition, bathing at dawn is a dailyactivity for the faithful residents ofMathura.

The land-water interface atVrindavan too is marked by thirty-eight ghats along a two-and-a-halfkilometer stretch. As the river curvesaround the peninsular land mass ofVrindavan town, the ghats shift intheir alignment. Keshi ghat on thenortheast is a prominent sacred spotmarking Krishna’s defeat of horse-demon Keshi.8 Only at Keshi andthe nearby Pandawala ghat can onereach water, so these two ghatsreceive intense use.

Darshan. With respect to thevisual experience, the riverfrontarchitecture at Mathura andVrindavan is oriented towards dar-shan of the river in her phenomenaland anthropomorphic form.Darshan is a profound mode of placeengagement that is not only aboutseeing the landscape as it is but alsorecognizing its divine attributes in itsnatural and representational forms.Yamuna’s divinity is recognizedand honored in daily visits to theriverfront for darshan, on festivals,and on parikrama yatras (ritual cir-cumambulations). The simple act ofseeing is celebrated in ritual activi-ties such as the evening aarti (wavingof lamps accompanied with chantingglories of the deity) and meditativecontemplation. Darshan of the river,as well as other deities, occurs intemples, and from the ghats, burjes(terraces solidly built or with chang-ing rooms underneath), colonnades,

Figure 4. Shah Burj and its View, Agra Fort. (Photograph by D. Ruggles)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 145


and chattris (octagonal or squarepavilions with domed roofs).

The river is capable of chang-ing the way that she presents her-self to the devotee. She is an ever-flowing, wide expanse, swelling andreceding with the seasons, turbulentand placid, reflective and dull underthe changing skies. For the Hindus,this phenomenological aspect of see-ing stretches to include other modesof vision in which the river assumesthe form of divine goddess. She isimagined thus in the mind’s eye,and this vision is sculpted as a repre-sentation of a beautiful damsel in avoluptuous posture, standing on atortoise and holding a jar of water inher bejeweled hands (Pandey 1984).In Braj, her divinity is associatedwith that of Krishna, and like Radha,she is his beloved. As his lover, shepartakes of his traits—her darknessis said to be that of the blue godKrishna himself. Bathing in herwaters purifies one of all sins, andmore than that it prepares thedevotee to be united with Krishnathrough love (Haberman 2000). Onthe ghats of Mathura and Vrindavan,darshan of Yamuna occurs to bothher phenomenal and iconographicform.9

The ghat architecture is porouswith many openings towards theriver (Figure 8). The river is always

in view, giving many opportunitiesfor darshan in movement and atrest. Chattris occur at river levelas well as on rooftops, and thus allowfor framed and elevated views.Colonnades lining the ghats aremulti-purpose public spaces thatallow the experience of being simul-taneously inside and outside. Belowthem the steps and terraces allow foran even closer view of the river forthose who wish to linger, performpuja (worship ritual), or participatein the aarti. A series of arches fromthe Krishna-Balram shrine in thecenter of the Vishram ghat plaza tothe ghat’s edge frame the proces-sional way as well as direct gaze andmovement to the water’s edge.

Braj, unlike Agra, has nosweeping visual axes that link grandmonuments. Instead, serial visionframes nodes and guides movement.In Mathura, the visual axes shiftwith the meandering streets as theyintersect with the ghats (Figure 9).Coming from the bazar, the chattrisalong the river are a visually beck-oning element in an unfoldingsequence of spaces (Ravindran1990). The humanly scaled spacesexpand and contract, the sense ofconfinement in them made more

pronounced by the expansiveness ofthe river. Similar to the kinestheticexperience is the ocular experienceof shifting cones of vision as onemoves through the streets to the cul-minating panoramic vistas of theriver.

The Experience of Landscape: AgraThe Agra riverfront is similarly

adorned with chattris such as thoseof the Mahtab Bagh (opposite theTaj) and the Shah Burj of the AgraFort.10 But here, the chattris andpavilions are set within the repeatingunit of the enclosed garden, whichcould be residential or funerary. Anearly eighteenth-century map ofAgra shows some forty-four such gar-dens adorning the banks of theYamuna River, and eyewitnessaccounts of their existence includedescriptions by the Dutch visitorPelsaert and Abu’l Fazl, Akbar’s his-torian (Figure 10).11 Of these, themausoleums and fort walls visuallydominated—and, of course, by 1648,the Taj was the prime focal point.The siting of the Taj must have beendeliberately chosen for visual effect:it is just on the bend in the river andcan be seen from the pavilions ofthe Red Fort downstream.12 Butvision also crossed over to the otherside of the river, so that the gardenslining the banks looked across ateach other, just as Mahtab Bagh andTaj gaze upon each other and wereseen reflected in the river (Figure 11)(Moynihan 2000).

The pavilions, chattris, andeven the raised terraces providedplaces for looking outward; theyframed the view. Framing occurredat many points. It was a recurringtheme in Mughal architecture: therewas always a sight, framed by somelovely cusped arch of a window, bal-cony, or gate (Figure 12). Thus, thelandscape was presented as a seriesof vistas in which an observer waspositioned by architecture to enjoy acarefully composed view of a desig-nated distant object. The distancebetween viewer and object was essen-tial for the construction of the view.This mode of visuality relied on suchpresentations where landscape wasobjectified, framed, organized,removed from immediate grasp, and

Figure 5. Bathing at Keshi Ghat, Vrindavan. (Photograph by J. Wescoat)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 146


placed “out there” to be appre-hended by the eyes alone (Ruggles1997). Distance and elevationallowed the eye to easily scan theskyline and read its elements; mean-while, within the walls, the eye couldsimilarly scan and read the geomet-

rical symmetry of the chahar baghgarden, experiencing it from the ele-

vated objective position of a raisedterrace.

The preference for objectivityand enclosure was a ubiquitous formof visual and spatial organization inIslam that did not develop in directresponse to the river or the particu-lar landscape character of Agra.Here at the Yamuna riverfront, how-ever, we see an application of asocial way of seeing and experienc-ing that contrasts with another verydifferent yet coexisting mode. TheYamuna did not cause this differ-ence; it was simply an environmentthat provides a case study where thedifference can be easily discerned.

ConclusionThe two cultural traditions—

Islamic and Hindu—have left verydifferent impressions on the land-scape. The sixteenth and seven-teenth-century Yamuna riverfront inAgra was a landscape of imperialpower. Its architectural vocabularyemphasized size and height andpromoted a symbolic associationbetween the emperor and the build-ing in life and death. Centralizedauthority was manifested in the con-cept of jharoka-i-darshan where theemperor appeared before the peo-ple gathered below, assuring a quasi-deification. While his gaze wasdirected at his domain—land, water,and people—his appearance in theframed opening was a continuingreminder of the power invested inhis person.13 Though an architec-ture of chattris and pavilions wasdeveloped to enhance vision in bothAgra and Braj, the meaning attrib-uted to vision was very different. Forthe Mughals, the Yamuna riverfrontwas presented to the eye via thedevice of framing. It was a source ofaesthetic pleasure, of the stabiliza-tion of the visual field (and all that itrepresented), and reassurance ofkingly status. For the devout Hindu,the river is a goddess; its banks sig-nify the eternal presence of Krishna,and they are an animated setting ofpowerful forces of nature. Vision issubjective and complex, and visualexperience is different dependingon one’s depth of belief and pur-pose of visit. The faithful employ amode of visuality in which the land-

Figure 6. Devotee receiving darshan of Krishna in a temple at Vishram Ghat, Mathura.(Photograph by A. Sinha)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 147


scape itself is acknowledged as asource of divine power.

Although both Agra and Brajtreated the river as a prime object ofvision, the Islamic mode of visualitywas phenomenal presentation while theHindu visual mode was iconic repre-sentation. These visual modes did notdevelop in response to the river—

their application transcends this par-ticular landscape. The river wasimportant to both, but in differentways: the Mughal elite monopolizedits views and access to it while theHindus regarded it as a moving axis

mundi with its spiritual benefitsshared by the population at large.

In Mughal capitals, the land-water interface was marked by a wall,whereas in the sacred centers ofHinduism, it took the form of ghats.The Agra riverfront, an orderedlandscape of gardens, was essentiallya private enclave of royalty andnobility, the city teeming with peo-ple kept at bay by walls. The land-scape displayed a high degree ofuniformity and visual consistency,creating the impression of naturecontrolled and the river, tamed. Incontrast, the ghats of Mathura andVrindavan are and have been a kindof public commons where bothrecreation and religious ritualsbegin at dawn and last long after thesun has set. The physical setting andthe activities it supports constitute achanging heterotopic order, in con-trast to the hegemonic landscapeof Agra’s Mughal riverfront whosedominant visual order spoke ofsplendor and politically motivatedspectacle.14

The split between distant view-ing and immediate immersion is notexplained by the separation of so-cial classes. Although the Mughalsformed an elite ruling class, theroyal palaces and riverside gardenswere frequented and even inhab-ited by a great many Hindus: theemperor’s mother, wives, femaleguests, and member of the politicaladministration at al ranks. Similarly,ordinary men and women of middleand lower levels of society were bothHindu and Muslim. The modes ofinteraction between people andlandscape identified here cannot beexplained as essential attributes ofMuslim and Hindu identity, nor asattributes of class.15 Rather, in theFoucauldian sense of the institutionand de Certeau’s model of domi-nant strategies versus individual tac-tics, vision and social practice tookshape as collective responses to theinteraction of culture (which isrelated to but not precisely cotermi-nous with religion) with landscape(Foucault 1977, de Certeau 1984).

Representations of the Agrariverfront in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries show a highdegree of visual conformity.

Figure 7. Ghats at Mathura. (Photograph by J. Wescoat)

Figure 8. Vishram Ghat, Mathura. (Photograph by J. Wescoat).

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 148


However, although the imperialarchitecture and gardens appear toclaim almost all of the riverbank andto dominate space, they could hardlyhave succeeded in repressing itsother uses. Surely bathing, wateringcattle, laundry, and cremation wouldoccasionally have been possible inthe interstices of that imperial space(Figure 13). We have seen on theeighteenth-century map that thethick band of walled gardens waspunctuated at regular intervals byalleys that gave an alternative accessto the river to those who were notin the gardens.16 A hegemonicmode of vision promises a sweepingpanorama of distant landscape andusually delivers it, but it can over-look the small instances of differ-

Figure 10. Eighteenth century map of Agra. (Redrawn by A. Sinha)

Figure 11. Mahtab Bagh’s View to TajMahal. (Courtesy of the Department ofLandscape Architecture, University ofIllinois at Urbana Champaign)

Figure 9. Map of Mathura’s Ghats. (After Ravindran 1990)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 149


ence that are close at hand. Hence,our proposed modes of visuality, thephenomenal and the iconic, are notmutually exclusive. Indeed, individu-als probably could and did movebetween them, changing perspectiveand behavior as they did so. TheIslamic and Hindu visualities thatwe have identified existed not asabsolute models reflecting fixedmodes of perception; rather, theyoperated as institutions of vision andspatial experience, constituting“scopic regimes” that were theninscribed architecturally in thelandscape.

Notes1. Although ideologically presented asIslamic and Persianate, the Mughals were notexclusively Muslim, for many of the wives andviziers of that dynasty were of prominentHindu families. In part as a result of this

blending, the Mughal court reflects diversepractices, syncretic religious beliefs, artisticforms, and—at least until the reign ofAurangzeb—religious and social tolerance.2. However, the Islamic visual culture was notentirely new, despite the claims of Babur andhis descendants. The Muslim Ghaznavids hadarrived in the early eleventh century, and bythe late twelfth century, independent Islamicsultanates were established. Nonetheless, theMughal conquest was a profound change inthat it united large areas of South Asia thathad previously been divided among Muslimand Hindu principalities.3. Babur built gardens as territorial markersof conquest in the alien landscape of Hindu-stan, which he disliked. Wescoat (1991) be-lieves that these riverfront gardens at Agrawere meant to be centers of military andcourtly life in opposition to the citadel of thevanquished Lodhi rulers.4. The fort palaces at Agra and Shah-jahanabad, as well as the one in Lahore (nowin Pakistan), which were the nuclei of theMughal capitals, were based upon the water-front garden module (Koch 1997b).5. Babur’s garden on the Yamuna river atAgra may have been the first to use the chaharbagh pattern, i.e., walled garden divided byintersecting walkways. The Mughal waterfrontgarden as it evolved combined a pavilion on

Figure 13. The Yamuna riverfront below the Taj Mahal. (Photograph by A. Sinha)

Figure 12. View of Taj Mahal from AgraFort. (Courtesy of the Department ofLandscape Architecture, University ofIllinois at Urbana Champaign)

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 150


the riverfront terrace, framed by corner tow-ers of the enclosure wall, with the four-plotgarden on the landward side (Koch 1997a).6. Asher (1993) speculates that the earliestMughal jharoka-i-darshan at Fatehpur Sikri,built by Akbar, was derived from projectingRajput palace windows. Its continuing pres-ence in later Mughal and sub-imperial palacesshows its centrality in court rituals.7. These include Janmashtami (Krishna’sbirthday), Kans Vadh ka Mela (fair celebrat-ing Kans’s death), Holi (festival of colors),and Jam Dutia (when brothers and sistersbathe together, celebrating the meeting ofYama with his sister Yamuna). Of the twenty-six festivals listed in Ravindran (1990), nineinvolve bathing.8. For example, Cheerghat is named after theepisode of Cheerharan, when Krishna stolethe clothes of the bathing gopis and playfullyhung them on the kadamb tree. Today, devo-tees, especially women, tie pieces of clothon the Kadamb tree near the ghat for wishfulfillment as mentioned by Anand (1992).9. She is worshipped in Bhai-Behn ka Mandirnear Vishram ghat, especially on the festivalknown as Jam Dutiya when Yama visits his sis-ter Yamuna. Another temple between Kansand Vishram ghat houses shrines of Yamunaand Hanuman, right on the water’s edge. AtKeshi ghat in Vrindavan is yet another templeto Yamuna, also housing a linga (aniconicform of Shiva) and Nandi (sacred bull). SeeRavindran (1990) for details on shrines.10. Koch (1986) describes one such chattriin Zahara Bagh in detail. The garden wasfounded by Mumtaz Mahal, wife of ShahJahan, and added to by her daughterJahanara. Though it did not have a chaharbagh layout, a paved walk from the gatewayled to a main structure on the riverfront ter-race, framed by elevated towers. The survivingsouthwest corner tower is a two-storied, octag-onal pavilion crowned by the typical form ofchattri found in Mughal garden architecture.Other gardens such as Bulund Bagh and Chinka Rauza have similar towers and the type canbe seen as well in palatine architecture suchas Shah Burj of Agra Fort.11. The early eighteenth-century map ofAgra is in the Maharaja Sawai Man Singh IIMuseum in Jaipur. For eyewitness sources, seeFrancisco Pelsaert (1978) and Abu’l Fazl(1978).12. This view has been the subject of manypaintings and photographs since the nine-teenth century when the “romance of the TajMahal” began to capture the Western imagi-nation. According to Pal (1989), among thenineteenth- and early twentieth-century artistswho depicted the Taj from the Agra Fortare the photographer Samuel Bourne andpainters Albert Goodwin and AbanindranathTagore. Today, picture postcards capturingthe Taj silhouette across the river are as popu-lar as the mausoleum framed by its entrancegateway. Tourist guides unfailingly narrate toevery visitor the story of the imprisoned ShahJahan as he lay dying in Agra Fort, gazinglongingly at the Taj.13. Necipoglu (1993) points out that thoughdarshan became a syncretic practice amongthe Mughals who ruled over a predominantly

Hindu population, the reciprocity that theconcept implied between the subject and theobject was somewhat lost when the emperorrevealed himself to his subjects daily after sun-rise. Mughal miniatures show Jahangir andShah Jahan in profile with an averted gaze atthe Agra Fort, implying the asymmetry ofpower between his person and those whogazed at him.14. Mughal gardens elsewhere also demon-strate the high degree of visual order and thestrategic location of pavilions and chattris onthe visual axes. At the suburban Shalamarbagh in Lahore, now in Pakistan, the threechahar bagh terraces, one above the other,established a gradient of privacy andrestricted access. The spatial layout spoke ofthe location of authority vested in the personof the emperor. Together with architecturalfeatures, it facilitated internal and externalsurveillance, created a dazzling visual specta-cle, and demonstrated a deliberate employ-ment of the vocabulary of power (Rasool andSinha 1995).15. Mythological accounts of Hindu king-doms at Mathura and Ayodhya (on the banksof the river Saryu) mention forts built attopographically high points in the landscapeand not directly on the riverfront. Elite andcommoners shared access to the holy riverbut in separate ghats. Indeed the earliest sur-viving palaces of the Hindu kings—Rajputs inWestern India from the fifteenth century—were usually contained in the forts built on ahilly terrain. The location assured the resi-dents a panoramic view of the surroundinglandscape, of great value in defensibility.However, as Tillotson (2001) points out, incontrast to the regularity of Mughal architec-ture, Rajput palaces made irregularity in plan-ning a virtue. With no discernable visual axes,the eye was entertained by an unpredictablesuccession of spaces, richly colored and intri-cately textured. Gardens in later Rajputpalaces showed a strong influence of theMughal tradition and were made visual foci ininterior courtyards and objects of the gazefrom dramatic overlook points (Ruggles 2002,2003).16. The present-day Yamuna riverfront atAgra, having lost most of the historic gardens,has evolved into a vernacular landscape offarm fields, nurseries, and small hamlets onthe east bank. On the west bank, local usesdominate the decrepit park system betweenthe city and the river upstream, while down-stream, parks, crematoriums, and nurseriesprevent full public access to the river. In theirmidst are tourist enclaves—heritage sites—maintained and controlled by the Archaeo-logical Survey of India. Small temples withghats to the river, mazars (tombs), and sacredtrees allude to Yamuna’s sacrality, albeitin a subdued way.

ReferencesAnand, D. 1992. Krishna, The Living God of

Braj. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.Asher, Catherine. 1993. Sub-imperial palaces:

Power and authority in Mughal India.Ars Orientalis, 23:281–302.

de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The Practice ofEveryday Life. Translated by S. Randall.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Eck, Diana. 1981. Darsan: Seeing the DivineImage in India. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Faz’l Allami, Abu’l. 1978. Ain-i-Akbari.Translated by H.S. Jarrett. Edited byJ. Sarkar. Reprint, New Delhi: OrientalBooks Reprint Corporation.

Foster, Hal, ed. 1988. Vision and Visuality.Seattle: Bay Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish:The Birth of the Prison. Translated byA. Sheridan. New York: PantheonBooks.

Haberman, David. 2000. River of love in anage of pollution. In Hinduism andEcology—The Intersection of Earth, Sky,and Water, edited by Christopher KeyChapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Hawley, John Stratton. 1983. Krishna, theButter Thief. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Jay, Martin. 1993. Downcast Eyes: The Deni-gration of Vision in Twentieth CenturyFrench Thought. Los Angeles-Berkeley:University of California Press.

Jay, Martin. 1988. Scopic regimes of moder-nity. In Vision and Visuality, edited byHal Foster. Seattle: Bay Press.

Kinsley, David. 1975. The Sword and the Flute—Kali and Krsna: Dark Visions of theTerrible and the Sublime in HinduMythology. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Koch, Ebba. 1986. The Zahara Bagh: (Bagh-i-Jahanara) at Agra. Journal of theIslamic Environmental Design ResearchCenter 2:30–37.

Koch, Ebba. 1997a. The Mughal waterfrontgarden. In Gardens in the Time of theGreat Muslim Empires: Theory and Design,edited by Attilio Petruccioli. New York:E. J. Brill.

Koch, Ebba. 1997b. Mughal palace gardensfrom Babur to Shahjahan (1526–1648).Muqarnas 14:143–165.

Moynihan, Elizabeth. 1988. The lotus gardenpalace of Zahir Al-din MuhammadBabur. Muqarnas 5:135–152.

Moynihan, Elizabeth. 1996. But what a happi-ness to have known Babur!” In MughalGardens: Sources, Places, Representations,and Prospects, edited by James Wescoat,Jr. and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn.Washington, DC: Dumbarton OaksResearch Library Collection.

Moynihan, Elizabeth, ed. 2000. The MoonlightGarden: New Discoveries at the Taj Mahal.Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Necipoglu, Gulru. 1993. Framing the gaze inOttoman, Safavid, and Mughal palaces.

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 151


Ars Orientalis, edited by GulruNecipoglu. [Special Issue] 23:303–342.

Pal, Pratapadiya et al. 1989. Romance of theTaj Mahal. London: Thames andHudson.

Pandey, Sudhakar. 1984. Ganga and Yamuna inIndian Art and Literature. Chandigarh:Indra Prakashan.

Pelsaert, Francisco. 1978. A Dutch Chronicle ofMughal India. Translated by B. Narainand S.R. Sharma. Reprint, Lahore:Sang-e-Meel.

Randhawa, M.S. 1982. Kangra Paintings of theGita Govinda. 2d ed. New Delhi:National Museum.

Ravindran, K.T. 1990. The Ghats of Mathuraand Vrindavan: Proposals for Restoration.New Delhi: Indian National Trust forArt and Cultural Heritage.

Rasool, Saeeda, and Amita Sinha. 1995.Transformations in the cultural land-

scape of Lahore, Pakistan. GeographicalReview of India 57(3): 212–222.

Ruggles, D. Fairchild. 1997. The eye of sover-eignty: Poetry and vision in theAlhambra’s Lindaraja Mirador. Gesta36(2): 182–191.

Ruggles, D. Fairchild. 2002. Gardens. Art ofIndia—Prehistory to the Present, edited byFrederick Asher. London: Encyclo-paedia Britannica.

Ruggles, D. Fairchild. 2003. The framed land-scape in Islamic Spain and MughalIndia. The Garden: Myth, Meaning, andMetaphor, edited by Brian J. Day.Working Papers in the Humanities 12.Windsor, Canada: University ofWindsor.

Sinha, Amita. 1994. Pilgrimage—Journey tothe sacred landscape of Braj. TheSpirit and Power of Place: HumanEnvironment and Sacrality, edited by

Rana P. B. Singh. Varanasi: NationalGeographical Society of India.

Srinivasan, Doris. 1989. Mathura: The CulturalHeritage. New Delhi: American Instituteof Indian Studies.

Tillotson, Giles. 2001. Palaces of the Rajputkings. Marg 52(4): 42–53.

Wescoat, James L., Jr. 1991. Landscapes ofconquest and transformation: Lessonsfrom the earliest Mughal gardens inIndia, 1526-1530. Landscape Journal10(2): 105–114.

Wescoat, James L., Jr. 1992. Gardens versuscitadels: The territorial context of earlyMughal gardens. In Garden History:Issues, Approaches, Methods, edited byJohn Dixon Hunt. Washington, DC:Dumbarton Oaks Research Libraryand Collection.

04402-Ch04.qxd 10/5/04 1:16 PM Page 152

Documents

The Yamuna Riverfront, India: A Comparative Study of Islamic And Hindu Traditions In Cultural Landscapes