The Akbarnama, or "Book of Akbar", was commissioned by the emperor Akbar as the official chronicle of his reign. It was written by 1590 and 1596 and is thought to have been illustrated between ca. 1592 and 1594 by at least forty-nine different artists from Akbar's studio. This painting was originally a part of the Akbarnama and after his death, the manuscript remained in the library of his son Jahangir, from whom it was inherited by Shah Jahan. The Victoria and Albert Museum purchased it in 1896 from Mrs. Frances Clarke, the widow of Major General John Clarke, an official who had been the Commissioner in Oudh province between 1858 and 1862.
The painting "An Attempt to Assassinate Akbar at Delhi, 1564" (ca. 1590–95) is from the Akbarnama (Book of Akbar), which was the official chronicle of the reign of Akbar, the third Mughal Emperor, commissioned by Akbar himself and written by his court historian and biographer, Abu'l Fazl. It was written in Persian, which was the literary language of the Mughals, and it mainly included detailed descriptions of his life and times. It is also believed that it had been illustrated by at least forty-nine different artists from Akbar's studio. This painting too belongs to the second volume of the Akbarnama, which focuses on the detailed history of Akbar’s reign.
Which is also why this painting becomes so historically relevant, because the scene shown here is based on a real incident from Akbar’s early life. Around 1564, when Akbar came to Delhi, the whole city was full of excitement and many people had gathered on the streets just to catch even a small glimpse of their emperor. And on one such day, after visiting the shrine of Nizamuddin Auliya, when Akbar was returning through the streets, it was at that moment, in the middle of a crowded and active space, that the attack happened. The assailant, who was believed to be hiding on a terrace or upper part of a building, had shot an arrow which struck Akbar on his shoulder.
What is interesting is not just the attack, but also how Akbar reacted to the incident. According to Abu'l Fazl in the Akbarnama, Akbar did not panic. In fact, at first he thought something like a stone had hit him; and while people around him started shouting and rushing in fear, he stayed calm. He simply told them to remove the arrow. Even after being injured, he did not lose control. He mounted his horse himself and returned to the palace. Of course, later the attacker was caught and Akbar ordered his execution almost immediately. With the help of royal doctors and treatment, along with prayers and blessings from everyone, Akbar recovered. But more than the injury, what stayed in memory was his behaviour during the crisis, which is why the incident becomes so important, as it shows Akbar not just as a ruler, but a very valiant and courageous one. It is also believed that it was his calmness, control, and strength in that particular moment that helped build his image as a powerful and capable emperor. So, when this event is painted, it is not only about the attack, but about showing what kind of ruler Akbar truly was.
If we now look at the artist who beautifully captured this moment on paper, it becomes even more fascinating. Unlike many later paintings where we find a single artist’s name, this work was produced within the royal Mughal workshop, where painting was usually a collective process; therefore, this painting has been attributed not to one, but to a group of artists, namely Jagan, Bhawani Kalan, and Madhav. Among them, Jagan is generally believed to have been responsible for the main composition of the scene, while Bhawani Kalan assisted in the execution of the work. Madhav, on the other hand, is said to have worked particularly on the facial features, which was a specialised task in Mughal painting. And although it might seem unusual at first, this method of working together was quite common in Akbar’s atelier, where different artists handled different parts of the same painting, such as drawing, colouring, and detailing. As a result, the final image reflects a combination of multiple artistic hands, yet maintains a sense of unity and balance, also showing how organised and advanced the Mughal painting workshop was during Akbar’s time. All of this gets reflected clearly in this painting.
If we look at the painting style and other features, the work clearly shows the main features of early Mughal painting, where the focus is mostly on storytelling, and every figure and detail contributes to the moment being depicted. Another interesting thing we find in this particular school of painting is that the buildings are not given a fully realistic or naturalistic identity; instead, space is shown in layers, with the buildings opening up so that we can see both the inside and the outside at the same time. Further, we also find a lot of movement, where people are reacting to the attack in different ways, which makes the scene feel active and alive.
Also, the scene unfolds in a progressive manner, moving from a calm gathering of people who had come to see the emperor to a sudden moment of panic after the arrow is shot. What makes it even more interesting is that despite the large number of figures and the crowded setting, the painting does not feel chaotic at all. The composition remains well-controlled and balanced. The use of bright and varied colours helps in separating different figures and parts of the scene clearly. And if we look at the overall style, the painting shows a blend of Persian and Indian influences, where the fine details and flat spaces come from Persian art, while the lively figures and focus on a real event reflect Indian traditions. The architectural details are also just as remarkable. For instance, if we look at the tile work and the delicate jali patterns on the balconies, even though the perspective is “flat” in the Persian sense, the way the artists have layered the buildings gives us a sense of the bustling streets of a 16th-century Delhi.
Now, coming to the subject matter of the painting, the scene is set in a crowded part of Delhi, filled with buildings, terraces, and open spaces. The architecture is shown in a cut-away manner, which allows us to see different parts of the structure at the same time. Akbar is placed near the centre of the composition, riding a horse and moving along with his group, dressed in royal attire. Even though the attack has just taken place, he appears steady and composed, not losing control of the situation. Further, if we look closely at the retainers, we can see the precise work Madhav had done in their faces, where each person has a distinct expression of shock, concern, or fierce determination. Some are looking upward, trying to identify where the attack came from, while others have already turned their attention to controlling the situation. The progression aspect within the scene becomes even clearer if we look at the left foreground, where we can see a figure being overwhelmed by the imperial guards, possibly representing the capture of the attacker. This part of the painting is particularly intense for the Mughal style; the guards are shown in the middle of a violent struggle, emphasizing that any threat to the Emperor is met with immediate action.
Overall, "An Attempt to Assassinate Akbar at Delhi, 1564" (ca. 1590–95) is much more than simply a historical record of a failed murder, rather it stands as a visual manifesto of Akbar’s kingship, portraying a ruler who remains calm and in control even in moments of danger, which further reinforces his image as a powerful and capable emperor, therefore also legitimizing his rule.
An Attempt to Assassinate Akbar at Delhi, 1564 transforms a moment of violence into a study of control and destiny. Rather than emphasizing chaos, the composition often frames the event within an ordered structure, suggesting that even disruption is contained within a larger imperial narrative.
The figure of Akbar appears less as a victim and more as a central force around whom the scene organizes itself, reinforcing ideas of resilience and divine protection. The painting can be read as a visual assertion of authority, where danger only serves to highlight the stability and inevitability of sovereign power.
