Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:30:46.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Military Security and Urban Development: A Case Study of Delhi 1857–1912

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Narayani Gupta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1857 Delhi ceased to be the seat of the Mughal kingdom, and in 1912 it became the capital of the British Empire in India. The city had always had strategic and, therefore, economic and political significance. In the half-century between 1857 and 1912 Delhi's increasing economic and commercial activity prevented the city from sinking, as some historic Indian cities did, into the obscurity of just another provincial town. Curzon described it in 1899 ‘a capital city, now of commerce as once of power’. It acted as the commercial entrepôt for all north India, after becoming the junction of a huge railway network connecting north India to the ports. Commercial expansion in turn led to a steady growth in the city's population. This physical and economic expansion was, however, affected by the government's concern for security in Delhi. The second half of the nineteenth century was the era of urban development in Britain, but when urban government was taking root in India in this same period, it was cramped not only by apathy and financial stringency, as in Britain, but also by strategic considerations. This is an aspect of Indian local government which has not been studied at all. As for Delhi itself, the city has yet to find its urban historian. In this paper I shall examine how far official considerations of military security affected the city's development.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 61 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Curzon, Lord, Speeches, Vol. I (Calcutta, 1900), p. 132.Google Scholar

2 Spear, P., Twilight of the Mughals (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 208–12.Google Scholar

3 Andrews, C. F., Zakaullah of Delhi (Cambridge, 1929), pp. 73–4.Google Scholar

4 F 238, Vol. II, ‘Restoration of Jama Masjid to the Muslims’ (CCO).Google Scholar

5 Selections from the Records of the North-West Province, Vol. I, Part 3 (1847); Punjab Administration Report for 1863–64, p. II, para. 288.Google Scholar

6 An almost identical parallel is afforded by the Counter-Mutiny in this same period in Lucknow. Cf. Nigam, M. N., ‘Evolution of Lucknow’, National Geographical Journal of India, Vol. VI, Part I (03 1960).Google Scholar

7 Act V of 1861, and Punjab Administration Report for 1860–61, Section I, Part 3, p. 10.Google Scholar

8 Lakhanpal, P. L., Ghalib, the Man and His Verse (Delhi, 1960), p. 115.Google Scholar

9 Statistics of Size of army contingents in various towns of the Punjab are available in the Punjab Administration Reports.

10 Secretary Government of India, to Secretary Government of Punjab in the Military Department, No. 82, 13 January 1860, Old Delhi Division Records, II/a bundle 45, n.p. (Punjab Government Archives, Patiala).Google Scholar

11 Curzon, Lord, Speeches, Vol. I (Calcutta, 1900), p. 223.Google Scholar

12 This can be seen in maps of the 1860s and 1870s. Another amusing example of official christening was the patriotic renaming of the Lahore and Delhi Gates of the Red Fort as Victoria Gate and Alexandra Gate; by the 1880s, however, the Gates were allowed to revert quietly to their original names.

13 Officiating Secretary Government North-West Province, to Chief Engineer North-West Provinces, No. 542, 18 December 1857. Foreign Department (Secret) of 25 January 1858, Nos. 14–15, p. 13 (NAI).Google Scholar

14 Officiating Secretary Government of India to Officiating Quarter-Master General, No. 822, 28 August 1868, F 553, Vol. I, ‘Appointment of a Committee to Investigate and Settle the Question of Government Rights to land within the limits of Delhi Military Cantonments’, p. 5 (CCO).Google Scholar

15 Note by Commissioner of Delhi, n.d., F 24, ‘Delhi City Extension Scheme’, p. 102 (CCO).Google Scholar

16 Correspondence in F 542, 1877 (CCO).

17 Quarter-Master General of India to Secretary Government Punjab in the Military Department No. 3283, 12 September 1868, F 553, Vol. I, p. 4 (CCO).Google Scholar

18 Deputy Commissioner Delhi to Officer Commanding at Delhi, No. 683, 25 May 1869, F 553, Vol. II, p. 15 (CCO).Google Scholar

19 The army controlled 468 acres of the walled city, the total area of which was 1437 acres. (Figures from map of Delhi City and Cantonment 1867–68. Scale 6″ = I mile.)

20 Suburbs developed in Indian cities only in the present century. In Delhi, cheap and abundant land beyond the open space around the wall was no incentive to the local élite to move out. Reasons of sentiment, family connections and business interests induced them to stay in the heart of the city. The result was over-crowding of the city centre.

21 Secretary Chief Commissioner Punjab to Secretary Government of India, Foreign Department, No. 403A, 1 March 1858, Foreign Department (Secret) of 25 January 1858, 14–15, p. 3 (NAI).Google Scholar

22 Ibid., p. 4.

23 Secretary Chief Commissioner Punjab to Secretary Government of India, Foreign Department No. 44, 11 February 1858, Foreign Department (Secret) of 25 January 1858, 14–15, p. 61 (NAI).Google Scholar

24 Narrated in a résumé of the history of the prohibition on buildings near the wall by Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 146, 25 March 1889, F 10(a), ‘Laying out new quarters outside the Lahore Gate to connect the city with the Sudder Bazar’, p. 9 (CCO).Google Scholar

25 Secretary Government of India, Public Works Department, to Secretary Government Punjab, Public Works Department, No. 174 M, 17 February 1868, F 163, ‘Delhi City Walls—Demolition of’, p. 69 (CCO).Google Scholar

26 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 4, 13 December 1870, F 163, p. 94 (CCO).Google Scholar

27 Gopal, S., British Policy in India 1858–1905 (Cambridge, 1965), p. 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 F 163, p. 4 (CCO)—See above, Note No. 26. The Deputy Commissioner remarks that those wanting to demolish the wall ignore the importance of the Delhi fortifications, holding that ‘it would be more in accordance with British instincts to go out and fight in the open’. Metz and Strasbourg showed that fortified towns could delay the enemy's advance.Google ScholarHoward, M., The Franco-Prussian War (London, 1961).Google Scholar

29 Superintending Engineer, Rajpootana State Railway to Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, No. 1098, 2 November 1870, F 163, p. 90 (CCO).Google Scholar

30 Commissioner, Delhi, to Chief Secretary Government Punjab, No. 254 L.F. 22 December 1905. Home Department (General) of December 1906, 13, in F 24, ‘Delhi City Extension Scheme’, p. 1 (CCO).Google Scholar

31 Act XV of 1867.

32 Act XXII of 1864.

33 Octroi was levied in the towns of some provinces of British India, on all goods (other than a few specified staple items like wheat) intended for consumption in the town.

34 Punjab Administration Report for 1871–72, p. 79.Google Scholar

35 Secretary Government Punjab, Public Works Department, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 1266, 13 June 1873, F 46, ‘Octroi Collection of Delhi Municipality—Delhi Cantonment's Share of’, p. 25 (CCO).Google Scholar

36 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 295, 3 June 1873, F 46, p. 21 (CCO).Google Scholar

37 Secretary, Delhi Municipal Committee, to Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, No. 467, 9 November 1896, F 46, p. 86 (CCO).Google Scholar

38 Officiating Secretary to Government Punjab, to General Commanding, 7th (Meerut) Division, No. 832, 22 December 1906, F 46, p. 107 (CCO).Google Scholar

39 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 37, 26 January 1871, F 553, p. 54 (CCO).Google Scholar

40 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 422, 28 November 1870, F 553, p. 46 (CCO).Google Scholar

41 Commissioner, Delhi, to Officer Commanding at Delhi, No. 186, 19 October 1872, F 167, Vol. I, ‘Improvement of the Western Suburbs of Delhi’, p. 50 (CCO).Google Scholar

42 Commissioner, Delhi, to Officer Commanding at Delhi, No. 218, 31 August 1863, F 163, pp. 1–6 (CCO).Google Scholar

43 Commissioner, Delhi, to Secretary Government Punjab No. 35, 27 January 1874, F 610, Vol. I, ‘Bela Plantation’, pp. 104–5 (CCO).Google Scholar

44 Curzon, Lord, Speeches, Vol. I (Calcutta 1900), p. 223.Google Scholar

45 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, 168 M.F., 10 June 1904, F 610, Vol. II, p. 5 (CCO).Google Scholar

46 Senior Military Member (Coronation Durbar Committee) to General Officer Commanding 3rd (Meerut) Division, No. 303/12, 22 May 1911, F 610, Vol. II, p. 163 (CCO).Google Scholar

47 Commissioner, Delhi, Secretary to Government Punjab, Public Works Department, No. 315, 7 December 1870, F 163, p. 92 (CCO).Google Scholar

48 Commissioner, Delhi, to Secretary Government Punjab, No. 74, 26 March 1867, F 163, p. 59 (CCO).Google Scholar

49 Agent, Bank of Bengal, to Commissioner, No. 79, 6 August 1868, F 163, p. 79 (CCO).Google Scholar

50 Civil Surgeon, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, 26 October 1863, F 163, p. 49 (CCO).Google Scholar

51 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 479, 25 September 1873, F 163, p. 106 (CCO).Google Scholar

52 The population of he town and suburbs increased from 154,417 (1868) to 173,393 (1881) to 189,648 (1891) to 232,837 (1911). The figures can be found in the decennial Censuses. (Also see Note No. 5 above.)Google Scholar

53 Delhi was the chief retail and distributing centre for the Punjab and North-West Province from 1867 (the year the East Indian Railway reached Delhi). Comparative trade statistics can be found in the Punjab Administration Reports.

54 From Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 239 M.F., 18 October 1905, Home Department, General, of December 1906, No. 14, F. 24, p. 2 (CCO).Google Scholar

55 Secretary, Delhi Municipal Committee, to Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, No.746, 14 March 1889, F 10(a), p. 18 (CCO).Google Scholar

56 Tinker, H., Foundations of Local Self-Government in India, Pakistan and Burma (London, 1954), p. 292.Google Scholar

57 Commissioner, Delhi, to Secretary Government Punjab, Public Works Department No. 119, 11 May 1868, p. 75 (CCO).Google Scholar

58 Commissioner, Delhi, to Secretary Government Punjab PWD, No. 315, 7 December 1870, F 163, p. 92 (CCO).Google Scholar

59 Commissioner, Delhi, to Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, No. 381, 30 September 1873, F 163, p. 108 (CCO).Google Scholar

60 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 97, 22 February 1890, F 45, p. 1 (CCO).Google Scholar

61 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 146, 25 March 1889, F 19(a), p. 10 (CCO).Google Scholar

62 Ibid., p. 20.

63 Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 146, 25 March 1889. F19(a), p. 12 (CCO).Google Scholar

64 Secretary to Government, Punjab, to Commissioner, Delhi, No. 772, 2 May 1889, F 10(a), p. 21 (CCO).Google Scholar

65 F 10(a), p. 12 (CCO).

66 There was a similar case of popular opposition to a municipal proposal to demolish the city walls in Lahore in 1890. It was said that this would mar the beauty of the city, make the collection of octroi difficult, and expose the city to robbers. Aftab Punjab (Lahore) 21 04 1890, Report on Native Newspapers (Punjab), 1890, p. 149, para. 29 (NAI).Google Scholar

67 Secretary Government of India, Military Department, to Secretary Government Punjab, No. 1672 M.W., 10 July 1890, F 45, p. 11 (CCO).Google Scholar

68 Secretary Government of India, Military Department, to Secretary Government Punjab, PWD, No. 8C, 7 November 1881, Home Department (General) 7 December 1906, No. 20, F 610, Vol. I, p. 6 (CCO).Google Scholar

69 Secretary, Delhi Municipal Committee, to Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, No. 744, 3 October 1905. Home Department (General) of December 1906, No. 15, F 610, Vol. I, p. 3 (CCO).Google Scholar

70 Commissioner, Delhi, to Secretary Government of India, No. 89, 17 April 1889, quoted in Commissioner, Delhi, to Chief Secretary of Punjab, No. 140, 3 July 1907, F 24, p. 76 (CCO).Google Scholar

71 Commissioner, Delhi, to Chief Secretary of Punjab, No. 140, 3 July 1907, F 24, p. 75 (CCO).Google Scholar

72 Ibid.

73 F 24, p. 83 (CCO).

74 ‘Proceedings of Committee which met at Delhi,18 March 1907, to consider removal of the battalion of Indian infantry from Daryaganj’, F 24, pp. 28–9 (CCO).Google Scholar

75 F 24, pp. 28–9 (CCO).

76 General Commanding, Eastern Command, to Quarter-Master-General, India, 1023-B, 2 April 1907, F 24, p. 26 (CCO).Google Scholar