While art lovers and connoisseurs could appreciate the art produced in India before the 19th century; a perception was created that in this vast world– populated by diverse styles and schools— the artists did not leave any trace of their identity. In this sea of anonymity, an art lover would strain ears to hear at least a whisper; if not a sound, to guess the identity of the artist.
Different styles were identified by their geographical range; Kangra, Kullu, Basohli, Bundi, Deccani etc. or by the historical demarcations—Mughal and Sikh etc. Most art historians did not try to explore it further. If, like Indian classical music; could there be Gharanas, based on lineage to represent a particular style of painting?
Dr Goswami observed certain styles that were intimately woven, hinting at genealogical linkages. He tried to break the traditional perception; to pull the artists of unusual finesse, out of the dark chambers of anonymity; to celebrate their brilliance by defining their identity. “These artists were creating such layered art on a paper smaller than A4 size, with such detailing and delicacy that a naked eye would miss several details. Their work is not only showing brilliance; it lends the viewer too, a fine eye to decipher; to see beyond,” he said in one of his lectures.
Gifted with a fine eye for deciphering minutiae, he tried to decipher, to deduce, like a sleuth, the hidden identity of artists by tracing a few clues. What intrigued him most was—the works of the family of Pandit Seu, his sons Manku and Nainsukh and later his grandsons. The names came later; after his three-year-long explorations in the world of account keepers of the erstwhile small Riyasats and their account books and Bahikhatas. Had it not been for the trained eye of Dr Goswami, who did not miss any clue on the miniature paintings; the identities of these artists would have been lost to the ravages of time.
The testimonies were left by the individual artists with their iconography; the history of quality achieved by an individual in a family and the lineage. The most identifiable of these characteristics was Nainsukh of Guler. Goswami wrote an essay in the 60s; in the initial days of his path-breaking research, Pahari Painting: Family as a Basis of Style and later a book Nainsukh of Guler: A Great Indian Painter from a Small Hill- State, based on his findings which took him to the dark tunnels of time; a few centuries.
Goswami had come to his conclusion after studying about 100 works of Nainsukh, in detail, along with the works of his father and brother Manku. An exhibition of Nainsukh’s works was held in 1999. Eberhard Fischer, former director, of the Rietberg Museum, who later collaborated on an exhibition of Naninsukh’s paintings with Goswami at Rietberg and produced a film on the life of Nainsukh (directed by Amit Dutta), observed, “It was the first monograph ever produced on an Indian painter, who was born before the 19th century, bearing the name of the artist.”
Goswami produced indisputable testimonies about Nainsukh and his family through his painstaking research. He used to illustrate the methodology of his research by giving an analogy. At places like Haridwar, where the Hindus immerse the ashes; along with the ashes, often, there is a tiny piece of gold that is put into the mouth of the dying person. When the bones are immersed, there are professionals at the ghat who use large pieces of mirror to reflect the tiny pieces of metal thrown in the water. Trained divers dive into the river to salvage the gold. “An art historian is like that diver who dives deep to pick a nugget.”
By picking these nuggets, he enters a world of silence—this world does not speak about the artist; it is the job of the art historian to piece together the tiny nuggets to find a pattern—about the places time and style of a particular artist. In the case of Nainsukh, after studying his works, Goswami visited places like Kurukshetra, Pehowa, Martand, Gaya, Banaras and Haridwar to piece together the tale of the artist, whose subtlety and understated brilliance enamoured him.
He went to a panda in Haridwar; the person who keeps the records of birth and death of a particular family, and enquired from him, if he had Guler bhai. By a few inscriptions on the back of the paintings, Goswami had deduced, that Nainsukh had some links with Guler, a small Riyasat in Himachal. The Yajman family and the family of pandas have maintained a durable association over generations; for centuries.
The panda said, indeed his family had the Bahi but was reluctant to show it to a stranger. When Goswami persisted, he said, the bahis are in the court, admitted as evidence for some family dispute of the Guler royals. Goswami insisted; that he would not leave Haridwar till he could find a way to have a look at the bahis.
He chanced upon nine lines of calligraphy inscribed by Nainsukh on the death of his patron from Jarota, and a small image of Lord Shiva and Parvati to ascribe divinity to the event, drawn by the distinct brush of Nainsukh, on the pages of the Bahi. Such testimonies proved that painters too, like musicians, were trained in a particular style within a clan; they carved out their signature albeit, within the style. This research paved the way for his contemporary and future art historians to look for the identity of anonymous miniature artists.
Nainsukh, born in 1730, had moved beyond his family signature by introducing more character study, nature study and a quality of almost imperceptibility in his drawings. While his contemporaries were showing their patrons their glory and valour, he showed his patron’s day-to-day life, bereft of valour, like getting a haircut or taking a bath. He had shown the influence of the Moghul paintings while his brother Manakus’ work followed the conservative Pahari style.
Goswami has studied over 100 paintings of Nainsukh in-depth, his monograph on Nainsukh offers all the details. Many of his delicate drawings are a part of Chandigarh Museum, the rest are in museums of Rietberg, Kolkata, Bharat Kala Bhawan, Varanasi and a few at the Prince of Wales Museum, London. Interestingly, the Sotheby’s had bought a few paintings of Nainsukh from the Tatas, which they were unable to auction. The paintings were bought back by the Prince of Wales Museum, Bombay, as it was known then.
Expanding his research on Guler artists, Goswami penned Manaku of Guler: The Life and Work of another great Indian Painter from a small Hill State, on the life and works of Nainsukh’s older brother.
Guler was just the beginning. He expanded his research into several styles and regions to study Indian miniature art. His scholarship is that of a rasik, a sahridaya (of the same heart). Once a classical musician told me, “The joy of performing music is enhanced when the listener can touch the point from where our music is created.”
Goswami not only touched the state of creation of the artist; he shared the joy with his readers and listeners. Turning many more Sahridayas.
Writer | Journalist | Art Lover
