How Indian temple architecture is rooted in art, religion, and politics

Indian Express

13-06-2025

— Ajeya Vajpayee
Temples in the Indian subcontinent survive in an intelligible and coherent form from at least the fifth century CE. The tradition, however, dates back much earlier to the times when they were makeshift or built in perishable material. Artefacts associated with temples – like the Garuḍa pillar from Besnagar and Śivaliṇga from Gudimallan dated to around 120 BCE and 80 BCE, respectively – corroborate the antiquity of this tradition.
The Indian temple architecture is broadly characterised by two overarching traditions, namely the Nāgara or northern building tradition and Draviḍa or southern building tradition. Although geographically defined, they are not exclusive to the two regions.
In addition to these two, Indian art treatises include a third type of building tradition called the 'Vesara' or hybrid. The etymological bearing of the term has led scholars in the past to understand this category as a synthesis of the northern and southern artistic traditions and associate it with the geographically fitting Deccan region.
The multi-storeyed exterior of the Nāgara and Draviḍa temples reflects their common ancestry from the Buddhist artistic tradition. Relief carvings on the gateways of Sanchi and Bharhut, and Mathura depict cities with gatehouses, mansions, and urban dwellings. The depiction showcasing visual images of dormer-windows, pillared balconies, railings, and domed structures evokes the structural temples. The facades of the later rock-cut caves at Kondane, Karle, Bhaja, and Ajanta (caves 1 and 19) display similar palatial arrangements.
The multi-storeyed towers of the Nāgara and Draviḍa temples harbouring the garbhagɽha (sanctum) of the temple are composed of a string of aedicules (small temple forms). These are transformed through diminution, repetition, splitting, super-imposition, and contraction to achieve its decorative exterior.
Each tradition uses different varieties of aedicules. For instance, the Nāgara superstructure incorporated the āmalaka (fluted bulbous capstone of a Nāgara śikhara), gavākṣa (cow's eye motif or horseshoe arch), and bālapañjara (nāsī-roofed cage aedicule) over pillarlets. The Draviḍian vimāna (south Indian shrine) featured kūṭa (domed aedicule), śālā, (wagon-vault roofed aedicule), and bālapañjara.
In the process of their evolution, the functional storeys of these towers were reduced to surface applique. The degree of architectural compression varied in both traditions: the Draviḍian superstructures were contracted enough to retain their palatial or horizontal profile, while the Nāgara superstructures were condensed significantly. In the latter, the many layers within the horizontal storeys were condensed enough to be visually subsumed within the verticality of the spire, thereby losing and mutating its original structural provenance.
The modest lineage of the temple architectural tradition was short-lived. The rock-cut, monolithic, and unpretentious structural shrines in timber, brick, and stone were swiftly supplanted by expansive structures. The caves of Barabar, Udayagiri, and Deccan, the stone shrines of Sanchi and Tigowa, the brick temples of Bhitargaon and Tala, and the monoliths of Mahabalipuram, to name a few, represent early attempts at temple building. The memory of timber shrines is captured in the rock-cut monuments of Deccan at Kondane, Karle, and Bhaja.
Over time, stones of different varieties, owing to their durability, became the primary building material in the later centuries. In the south, it was, reluctantly, adopted later in the seventh century CE because of its association with the megaliths.
In the rock-cut traditions, rocks from mountains were carved from ceiling to base-mouldings, using wooden pegs, iron chisels, and hammers. For the structural temples, the stone was dressed and placed horizontally, usually without mortar to achieve the desired form. The architectural transition owed to a range of religious, social, political, and economic necessities of the time.
The religious and social necessities of ritual-based worship – such as darśan, pradakṣiṅa, puja backed by didactic texts – demanded an elaborate structure for the temple as opposed to the compact Buddhist caityas. The temples of the sixth-seventh centuries CE comprised a maṇḍapa (hall), garbhagṛha, and śikhara (superstructure). Religious merit accrued through temple construction attracted important individuals towards the cause, making the temple a public institution.
Temples were often patronised by powerful kings to revere their favourite deity as well as assert, consolidate, and legitimise their overlordship over an existing or new domain. For example, Rajaraja Cola built the Thanjavur Brihadesvara temple to assert his supremacy over the region. Rulers also named the presiding deities after themselves to assert their divine kingship. For example, the presiding deity of Chalukya king Vijayāditya at Pattadakal Sangamesvara was called Śrī-Vijayēśvara-Bhaṭṭāraka.
As asserted by Kesavan Veluthat, and echoed in the arguments of Alexis Sanderson, 'Patronage was not entirely without its return. It helped the patron to use the symbols of that religion for their benefit. This political use of religion included the use of its symbol for the purpose of political mobilisation and then using them as metaphors of power.' Simply put, religious institutions, such as temples, were patronised by rulers to meet political ends. Built with the same intent, small-scale temples and miniature shrines often accompanied big ones owing to meagre patronage by disadvantaged individuals.
As public institutions, temples also served as monasteries and focal points of community activity. In an inscription from the Alampur Bala Brahma, the temple's function as a monastery is highlighted in the establishment of an asylum and hospital for the ill and for sick cattle. The same inscription also elucidates the disposition of land grants towards organising musical programmes within temples.
The development of Indian temple architecture is rooted in a complex interplay of art, religion, politics, and society. While it began modestly, it developed into a sophisticated tradition that varied across regions yet maintained a coherent cultural identity.
What are the two main architectural traditions of Indian temples, and how are they geographically defined?
What is the Vesara tradition, and how has it been historically interpreted?
What are aedicules, and how do they contribute to the decorative features of Nāgara and Drāviḍa temple towers?
What early sites and structures represent the beginnings of temple building in India?
How does temple architecture reflect the intersection of religion and politics in early India?
(Ajeya holds a PhD in History from the University of Delhi. Her research focuses on the art historical traditions of India and South Asia.)
Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with [e-mail].
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.