The Myth of Islamic Architecture & Colonial Formations in India

By Ethan Dincer

On our Delhi city walk, our guide, historian, social activist, and filmmaker Sohail Hashmi, introduced us to the idea of religion and architecture. The majority of our walk was focused on one aspect of this intersection: the myth of Islamic architecture. Though, in the words of Professor Hashmi, architecture “has no religion” and instead functions as the response by a community of their surroundings, British colonial rule sought to demarcate certain forms of architecture as inherently “Islamic” to partition and effectively erase. In the following reflection, I will be utilizing Professor Hashmi’s ideas illustrated through our walk of Isa Khan’s Tomb, Humayun’s Tomb, and the adjoining Masjid, to dismantle the mythology of Islamic architecture as institutionalized by the West.

📷

The two elements of Islamic architecture, the true arch and dome, are emblematic of our (the West’s) perception of what makes a structure Islamic. True arches, known for their extreme strength, are constructed by using a keystone in the middle to adjoin both sides. In that manner, a dome is simply a circle constructed by true arches. These two symbols are reflected in the construction of mosques, regal gates, mausoleums, or government houses in the Middle East and Asia. Yet, nothing says that the dome and arch are Islamic. The first arches to be used in an institutional manner were in Roman aqueducts, which are far from Islamic. The Romans also used the arch in the Senate as a way to neutralize hierarchies of power between Senators. If the genesis of the arch was used in a secular and democratic manner, then why is it assigned a religious value? Similarly with the dome— the first domes appeared in Jewish temples in the Middle East, and today the largest domes in the world reside in the Vatican and in Congress. Yet when the dome is mentioned in an architectural context, many jump to the intricate symmetry of mosques throughout the Eastern world.

In addition to challenging the notion of arches and domes, the definition of Islamic architecture relative to other religious and architectural fusions comes into question. If the West coins Islamic architecture as a materialized field of study in many prestigious institutions, then why do they not contrive Christian architecture? What makes Islamic architecture so “other” that its existence relies on years of scholarly work surrounding it? If the West decidedly named architectural motifs “Christian,” consequently the entire Western world would be categorized under this moniker. Instead, Western architecture is more nuanced— architectural eras such as gothic, neoclassical, and renaissance are defined while national origin-based architecture, such as Spanish architecture, all fit under a theme of Christian architecture. Yet Islamic architecture has not been given such liberties of nuance by the West. Rather, only one category can define 3000 year old architecture spanning from Turkey to Indonesia.

Applying the mythology of Islamic architecture to our experience in India, we see that British colonial fallacies continue to live on in defining Indian architecture. Central Asian architecture, the style that’s called Islamic, arrived in India due to Humayun’s rule as the second Mughal emperor. Thus, “Islamic” architecture only landed in India in the sixteenth century; yet mosques had existed for four centuries before that. The first mosques in India didn’t have domes or arches, and these motifs started entering mainstream Mughal architecture only after Humayun introduced them.

So, in reality, Islamic architecture in India is wholly syncretic: the arch and dome style architecture brought over by the Turks and Persians fused with pre-Mughal styles of architecture to form the distinctive Mughal architecture seen in Humayun’s Tomb and the Taj Mahal. This architectural syncretism speaks to the nature of empires in India, specifically non-Western ones. The Mughals, Turkish Sultanate, and Persians all passed through and established domain in India, yet their form of colonization was remarkably different than that of the British. These three non-Western empires practiced what I call syncretic colonization, in which they added to the society they took over. In this method, architecture serves as the recipient for this cultural syncretism. We see this in Isa Khan’s Tomb, where “Islamic” motifs are overshadowed by Hindu religious symbols and Persian art aesthetics. Comparing these non-Western empires with British colonial rule, distinctions form that divide Western and non-Western colonizations. While the non-Western empires practiced syncretic colonization, the British utilized possessive colonization that enabled the drain theory to achieve fruition: they desired to categorize and label differences in Indian society to effectively erase them. This form of British colonization explains the reasoning behind the term “Islamic architecture” in colonial India— British colonizers wanted to “other” Islam from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity in architecture to exploit and erase it. Such exploitations are seen in the Taj Mahal, where all the precious stones and gold were carved out by the British to be used in the royal crowns.

📷

Ultimately, the myth of Islamic architecture leaves us, as members of the West, to consider the colonization of our intellect. Why do we accept facts and terminologies laid down by the British 200 years ago? While the white man has written in history that the dome and arch implicate Islamic architecture, there exists no force compelling us to believe in this myth. Similarly, prestigious academic institutions continue perpetuating the myth of Islamic architecture, brainwashing future leaders to subjugate Islam to the Middle East and Asia, reflected in modern Western foreign policy.

There also lies deeper implications to believing in the myth of Islamic architecture. Once there exists the notation of Islamic architecture in the public mind, the alienation of Islam cyclically continues with “Islamic” music, “Islamic” dress, and “Islamic” food. Believing in such ideological fallacies perpetuates the othering of Islam in the West, because if the West can demarcate Islam to lie solely east of the Mediterranean, then they can erase it from public discourse. Islamic architecture is only the first step in falling victim to intellectual colonization. Thus, to decolonize our minds, we must question the littlest of facts and see the truth behind them.