Introduction
Food is much more than the simple act of eating and drinking. Using Kertzer’s phrase, they are ‘action wrapped in a web of symbolism.’ Sharing food and feasting were a form of charity that provided legitimacy to imperial sovereignty, and provided to the rulers a certain degree of acceptance in the wider society. It was also a crucial form of gift-exchange, and served to create and maintain inter- and intra-community solidarities.
However, mainstream Mughal historiography remains to this day to be involved with the political and economic bases of Mughal power where subjects of social and cultural history, not to mention questions of culinary history, have yet to find a substantial place in these writings. A ‘pleasure principle’ …show more content…
The early Mughal rulers celebrated special occasions – victory after the war, to honour someone special, festivals, birth of a child, nuptials, etc., by hosting a feast or a banquet. Feasts on these occasions were charged symbolic events, and conveyed complex social and political meanings. Dietler, Hayden and Susan Pollock argue that feasts were important symbolic events where commensality was not just limited to eating and drinking together, but more than a physical act, they served to buttress social and political ties and promoted a competition to display one’s own wealth and higher social status. Definitely, a feast or banquet brought about various groups of people together and its lavishness displayed the affluence of the dynasty. It has also been suggested that food and feasting played a significant role in the development of social hierarchy and the exclusive privileges of the ruling class. One could fruitfully apply these insights for the study of feasting practices in Mughal India, as well.
There are several references in the contemporary sources to the Mughal rulers and the nobles organising lavish feasts and banquets. Some of these descriptions appear to be exaggerated, such as, Abul Fazl’s description of Shah Tahmasp’s reception of Humayun or Akbar’s birthday celebration. During the time that Akbar was born, Humayun was on a run, and having lost the crown, …show more content…
In the articulation of imperial authority, feasts functioned in at least three symbolic realms. Early Mughal feasts were often used as occasions to demonstrate the kind hearted and generous image of the king. Almost every narrative of a feast highlights imperial munificence and the inclusion of common people with modest means, in the distribution of food. Sources have described these early Mughal rulers as benevolent kings who had no attachment to wealth and spent lavishly on their chiefs and subjects, granting them gifts, arranging lavish feasts and distributing food and money in charity. Both Humayun and Akbar followed the tradition of being weighed against gold in the balance, and the entire cash or kind was distributed to needy
Food is much more than the simple act of eating and drinking. Using Kertzer’s phrase, they are ‘action wrapped in a web of symbolism.’ Sharing food and feasting were a form of charity that provided legitimacy to imperial sovereignty, and provided to the rulers a certain degree of acceptance in the wider society. It was also a crucial form of gift-exchange, and served to create and maintain inter- and intra-community solidarities.
However, mainstream Mughal historiography remains to this day to be involved with the political and economic bases of Mughal power where subjects of social and cultural history, not to mention questions of culinary history, have yet to find a substantial place in these writings. A ‘pleasure principle’ …show more content…
The early Mughal rulers celebrated special occasions – victory after the war, to honour someone special, festivals, birth of a child, nuptials, etc., by hosting a feast or a banquet. Feasts on these occasions were charged symbolic events, and conveyed complex social and political meanings. Dietler, Hayden and Susan Pollock argue that feasts were important symbolic events where commensality was not just limited to eating and drinking together, but more than a physical act, they served to buttress social and political ties and promoted a competition to display one’s own wealth and higher social status. Definitely, a feast or banquet brought about various groups of people together and its lavishness displayed the affluence of the dynasty. It has also been suggested that food and feasting played a significant role in the development of social hierarchy and the exclusive privileges of the ruling class. One could fruitfully apply these insights for the study of feasting practices in Mughal India, as well.
There are several references in the contemporary sources to the Mughal rulers and the nobles organising lavish feasts and banquets. Some of these descriptions appear to be exaggerated, such as, Abul Fazl’s description of Shah Tahmasp’s reception of Humayun or Akbar’s birthday celebration. During the time that Akbar was born, Humayun was on a run, and having lost the crown, …show more content…
In the articulation of imperial authority, feasts functioned in at least three symbolic realms. Early Mughal feasts were often used as occasions to demonstrate the kind hearted and generous image of the king. Almost every narrative of a feast highlights imperial munificence and the inclusion of common people with modest means, in the distribution of food. Sources have described these early Mughal rulers as benevolent kings who had no attachment to wealth and spent lavishly on their chiefs and subjects, granting them gifts, arranging lavish feasts and distributing food and money in charity. Both Humayun and Akbar followed the tradition of being weighed against gold in the balance, and the entire cash or kind was distributed to needy