Article contents
Military Security and Urban Development: A Case Study of Delhi 1857–1912
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971
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
- 7
- Cited by