explain the process of making of new Delhi
Answers
THE imperial capital of New Delhi forms one of the most enduring architectural legacies of colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent. It had come under British control by 1803 and more firmly so after the suppression of the 1857 rebellion.
However, the decision to make it the new capital was only taken in 1911. The process of setting up the new imperial city was not a simple architectural or urban planning exercise; it emerged out of intense debates relating to the changing strategic interests of the British Empire in India. It also involved intense discussions regarding the site of the new capital, choice of architects, style of architecture, layout of the city, acquisition of land and design of individual buildings—all of which played an important part in the making of New Delhi. The whole process was further complicated by the outbreak of the First World War, time and cost overruns, and differences between the two leading architects, Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker.
Why was a decision taken to shift the capital from Calcutta to Delhi? Nationalist opposition to colonial rule was building up in Calcutta, which had been the seat of the British administration for around 150 years. Further, Lord Curzon’s partition of Bengal—the creation of a new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam with the “Muslim city” Dacca (Dhaka, now capital of Bangladesh) as the capital—had caused a huge uproar, leading to a boycott of foreign goods, the development of a movement for swadeshi enterprises and, later, bombings and political assassinations. Calcutta was becoming a less hospitable home for the British. There were at least two primary ideas at the heart of the discussions surrounding the transfer of the capital. The first was to reunify Bengal and in some way assuage the hurt nationalist sentiments. Connected to this was the second idea of giving Bengal the same status and autonomy as the Madras and Bombay presidencies. It was argued that “the Supreme Government should not be associated with any particular Provincial Government” and that in the long run the provinces should have a larger measure of self-government.
The author Jag Parvesh Chander points out that Sir J. Jenkins (Home Member of the government) provided a “masterstroke of invention” by proposing an idea that involved revoking the partition of Bengal, redrawing its provincial boundaries and transferring the imperial capital to Delhi. However, the plan was kept a top secret until the Coronation Durbar of 1911, held in Delhi, where King-Emperor George V announced the transfer of the seat of government from Calcutta to the ancient capital of Delhi and the creation of a new governorship for Bengal. Lord Curzon and, interestingly, many Europeans were angry with the “unhappy desecrators of Calcutta”. The newspaper The Englishman even warned that those going to Delhi would suffer from “the swamps and heat, the boils and blains, the snakes and insects” and much more.
Why Delhi?
Why was Delhi chosen? It was an ancient city associated with Hindu mythology and sacred legends. It had a more central location and was closer to the summer capital, Shimla. Some even argued it had a better climate. More importantly, Delhi had been a seat of power under the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals, and the government wanted to build on this symbolic association too. The historian Rudrangshu Mukherjee says that Calcutta lacked the grandeur of Delhi. Further, the 1857 rebellion had shown the symbolic importance of Delhi and the emotional connect people had with it and the Mughal emperor. Interestingly, during the Coronation Durbar, George V and Queen Mary even appeared before the Delhi public from a jharokha (overhanging enclosed balcony) at the Red Fort—trying to appropriate an imperial symbolism and a practice only reserved for emperors—to reiterate their supremacy over the subcontinent.