Kogan, Noelle. “Essay: Akbar's Entry into the Fort of Ranthambhor.” In The Akbarnama: A Digital Art History Student Project, April 4, 2018. .
Since 1896, the V&A has held Abu’l Fazl’s illustrated manuscript, the Akbarnama. Bought by the South Kensington Museum (now the V&A) from Frances Clarke, this document contains 116 miniature paintings to support detailed descriptions of Akbar’s life and reign. This image accompanies the story of the Mughal emperor Akbar directing the attack of the imperial forces on the Rajput fortress of Ranthambhor. Knowing that he would not be able to get close to the walls without the imperial guard seeing his army, he instructed Qasem Khan and the Hindu Raja, Todar Mal to construct sabats -or covers- for the artillery in order to disguise the weapons. His tactic was successful and Raja Surjan Hara, the fort’s governor, sued for peace and agreed to a treaty – the only one of its kind ever signed by the Mughals. The keys to the fortress were handed to Akbar, who entered it the next day. The creator of the Akbarnama, Abu’l Fazl notes that the only other Muslim conqueror of Ranthambor had taken a year to achieve what Akbar’s forces accomplished in a month. After the short-lasting siege, Surjan entered Mughal service, and he and his companions were given many privileges, including the right to carry arms in Akbar’s Hall of Audience (Beveridge 493-497).
This image presents the scene when Akbar infiltrates Ranthambhor. His troops rush up the hill and through the gates of the fortress, many on horseback and all armed for combat. The men are brandishing many types of weapons including spears, bows, and swords. Surrounding Ranthambhor, Akbar’s artillery is hidden under sabats or tent-like structures. Aiming up at the walls we see an arsenal of cannons, that were instrumental in Akbar’s defeat of Surjan. The emperor is pictured inside the fort on horseback, as the imperial forces surrender to him.Located near the town of Sawai Madhopur in India, sits Ranthambore Fort. Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site, this historic location was built by a Chauhan ruler in 944 CE (UNESCO). Since then, the fort has housed many rulers, one of which was the Mughal Emperor, Akbar. Rumoured to be impenetrable, Akbar sought to defeat the “invincible stronghold” and take the compound for himself, and in 1569 - after only one month - he did so (Richards 25).
The Akbarnama is not the only famous text to mention Akbar’s conquering of the Rajput fortress; the Surjanacarita, a Sanskrit poem also discussed the siege and the eventual occupation of the fort. Just like in every battle, there are at least two sides to every story. Mughal works like the Akbarnama celebrated Surjan’s surrender and considered it a great defeat (Talbot). There are many mentions of the clever tactics that Akbar and his forces used to succeed in the take over, as well as the treatment of the Rajput forces following. The Akbarnama claims that after the short-lasting siege, Surjan entered Mughal service, and he and his companions were given “many privileges, including the right to carry arms in Akbar’s Hall of Audience” (Beveridge 495). However, along with many other Rajput texts, the Surjanacarita describes an experience of “subjugation to a cultural ‘other’” (Talbot). According to Munhato Nainsi, the famous Jodhpur chronicler, Akbar actually held Surjan in contempt. Akbar reportedly had a picture of Surjan in “the guise of a dog” -an animal despised in historic South Asia- placed on a gateway into the fort, thereby causing Surjan great shame (Talbot). Whether this account was accurate can no longer be determined. If nothing else, it makes evident the complexity of-and possible inconsistency in-responses to the changing circumstances resulting from Mughal expansionism.
Akbar’s army was something to behold, and in 1569 he led them to an assault on the fort of Ranthambhor which, together with Chitor, controlled the major trade corridor to the sea. To defeat the current ruler, Surjan, Akbar ordered the construction of two sabats or covered passages from the hills to the walls of the fort. About “5,000 builders, carpenters and stone-masons were employed for the purpose” (Richards 26). A sabat was partly an underground tunnel, and partly a covered pathway above the surface. It cut through the hills to provide safe and discreet passage for soldiers and artillery. Simultaneously, men were digging tunnels for “two mines and an approach trench”; eventually to be covered by the sabats (Richards 26). Akbar employed “hundreds of bullocks and dozens of elephants” to drag fifteen massive siege guns to a hill overlooking the fortress. He used the cover of the tents to get the artillery close to the fortress, and after only a month of set up and artillery strikes, he conquered Ranthambor (Richards 27). Without the use of the newly developed sabats, the Mughal army would have lost countless men, and Akbar might not have succeeded.
Although he is said to have been illiterate, Akbar was also the first great Mughal patron of the arts. He commissioned numerous illustrated manuscripts that incorporated Persian, Indian, and even European elements, and the artists who worked for Akbar included Persians as well as Indian Muslims and Hindus. This collaborative process helped to foster the development of a specifically Mughal style that continued to refine itself with elements of realism and naturalism (Guy). Sixteenth-century Islamic court painting is distinguished by its preoccupation with surface embellishment, as well as the contribution of European art, known principally through engravings of Christian subjects distributed by evangelising Jesuits. The goal of Mughal painting was that of naturalism, to animate the figures and “introduce atmospheric qualities into the landscape” (Guy). The image is a perfect example of this combination of different cultures and artistic styles. The fort is depicted in a stylized manner that contrasts with the European influence apparent in the naturalistic treatment of the background, where a city is seen through “the misty blue tones of distant Western landscapes” (Stronge 49). Emotion is conveyed through “standard gestures of Timurid and Safavid painting rather than facial expression” complimented by naturalistic depictions of animals and vegetation (Crill 24).
The painting displays a multi-point perspective where the artist draws upon a number of details to signify the reality of the event. He utilized various types of perspective to present a panoptic narrative. The canons placed outside the tents are shown from an aerial perspective, while other activities are depicted on the same plane as the viewer. When one first looks at the image it is easy to assume that Mughal artists were unable or unwilling to ‘fully commit’ to the use of linear perspective, however, Yoriko Kobayashi-Sato and Mia Mochizuki state that “the issue is not an inability to understand the principles of European linear perspective. Rather, for Mughal artists and viewers, it was the amalgamation of different definitions of “optical accuracy” and alternate visions of representing truth that needed to be negotiated” (Leibsohn 82).
The artist relates scale to significance, as Akbar appears larger than any structure or being near him. Conflictingly, the emperor is dressed in a simple white tunic, with an unadorned turban on his head. There is a contradiction of Akbar being portrayed as being imbued with semi-divinity but also as a devotee of holy figures. A case could be made for the image serving the goal of “legitimizing [Akbar’s] authority” and “augmenting [his] sanctity”, while simultaneously making his humanity believable (Mitchell 381).