INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been repmduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and

dissertation copies are in typemiter face, while others may be from any type of

computer printer.

The quality d this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submittad. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and

there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright

material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletrCon.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning

the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to

right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photogmphs included in the ociginal manusai'pt have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x Q black and whRe photographic

prints are availabk for any photographs or i l lus~*om appearing in !his copy for

an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to oder.

Bell (L Howell Information and Learning 300 Nofth Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 481061346 USA

B R I T I S H A L T E R A T I O N S T O T H E P A L A C E - C O M P L E X O F

SHAHID MAHMOOD

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial f ~ l l m e n t of the

requirements for the degree of Master In Architecture.

School Of Architecture McGill University, Montreal

November, 1997

(b SHAHID MAHMOOD, 1997

National Library ofCanada

Bibliotheque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaON K1AON4 Ottawa ON K1 A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts &om it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, preter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la forme de tnicrofichelfilm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electrouique.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent &re imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

THE DEVASTATION OF DELHI-A LAMENT

[)car friend. 1 k c c c h you. qxak nm d the Delhi ttur n no mon, t cmnur bear to l imn to the wd Jtnn- af this city. 0 niyirtitrgak. I impbrc ynu. d n ~ ncu t znnp d autumn, While we laugh and dl;. how can we mown wirh y d O minstrel. at such a rimn whcn nw linrr cram plcsrurc, no nat twin a hean-pictci~ig g B r A . 0 m r - p a i n r e r . Ju not gcn bcfurc w an alhum a i painrings, It will only r n ~ ~ i n J us of thc trrruQ'~rar af rhc pm. 0 my hcut, take cut. do n a make rnc weep like a hemy cIwd The r r c r n of bloai is thrubbing in my veim. 0 advcntunr. your hcarr will k rurd with pain and Mcf. Harken ro me, do ncx go into she ruins d Ddhi. .it *cry sap, priceless pewla lie buricd bcnuth rlic duu, So p&cc in the world u so rich wirh h i d h mastwe. E v a tltc mca of uhu minded m nf the city's damnion arc gmc, Dar haven. an rhmc k mtcr d ~ l i r i o n than that? 'narc who arc ganc haw fargotten m W c too k r c nucd to rhink of thun T i m ham chmgnl as they a n ncvcr chanp spin. Chat you point to my family which d m nor bcar Uar hrrvm, rluc made us uccp, cmc. f h h yuu. But do n a Ier m m n muck UL If they rcrc trr h a w our pli~hc. not only friends Out thc whulc w d d would piry tu 0 cupbearer. who pmcs the Lrr m n d d wine. Du not hll it to the bn'ni. and let no r h i i bc fully pumrhcd. Fur nuw thcir long spell d plnl fununc I i i deep. 130 nuc awoke t h . 0 whccl of rin~c. thcy arc drrp in rlunrlrcr. C) nrinh and its. hmacn hcncc. Dellri is no place far yau any mn-, Sa. once I k l h i w u the rcrttrc af tn and ricnrc. fluc t b am uf putcy is ticad. mwr ta Iw Inm yrin. Do n u gricvc for thc dtnits nf the put. 'Gldib'. 5hcfra'. ' S a y p i . '.4rurrk' snd Zauq' will nwcr cuuir: again. A h 'Atamin'. 'Ahvi' and 'S*lrlr;li= who is lcfr rn q p k trf tbs ut of p q ? Thc light of thcu W m n m a h shmc m ur whc~ were n a gnat. Lismr m the w r y of 'Dash' and '3lrjruW. lw after than St, nifiringde will wddc in this rac-gdcn. Thrrr wuL'au nf the pasc uc no m m , And is is umrrmly that I llwuld gricvc crrtrcm with my own k t .

(Enpli rmdrrin(l by Dr Yunm J8fFuy)

ABSTRACT

Built on the ruins of earlier cities, the Mughal Emperor Biihjahh founded aihjahMiblid in 1639. Cradling a fort, the city expended itself down the sociaUhousing strata to a wall. This wall not only brought coherence to any one group but provided an interaction amongst them. These cohesive units formed neighborhoods called mohallahs, marked by religious, economic and social liaisons, their identity legitimizing the power of certain individuals and institutions. The Palace-Complex formed the pinnacle in this urban hierarchy. This thesis shows the importance of the Palace-Complex and how the British occupied it after the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion in an attempt to exercise control over the city.

RES

Consmite sur les mines d'anciennes villes, Shiihjahhlbad fut tondee par 1'Empereu.r Mughal afihjahln en 1639. Embrassant Ie fort, la ville s'est dkveloppde B travers les diffe'rentes couches sociales jusqu'au mur. Le mur n'apportait pas seulement de

la coherence it chaque groupe, il permettait une interaction entre eux. Ces unites cohkentes d6termin&rent des quartiers appeles mohallahs, marquCs par des liaisons religieuses, tconomiques et sociales, leur identite Mgitimant le pouvoir de certains individus et institutions. Le Cornplexe du Palace delimitait le pioacle de cette hi6rarchie urbaine. Cette thtse dkmontre l'importance du Complexe du Palace et comment les Brittaniques Poccupbrent aprhs la rebellion Sepoy en 1857 dam l'espoir d'exercer leur contr6le sun la ville.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Vilcram Bhatt for the invaluable guidance he provided throughout the term as my advisor. Marcia King and Helen Dyer are both saviors in the m s t sense, without whom, all administrative hurdles would have seemed painful. Also on this "list of appreciation" are my classmates and friends. They provided all the necessary diversions during this past year and a half in Montreal. My deepest gratitude, however, goes out to my family in Pakistan to whom I owe everything.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CHAPTER I 1 .1 Rationale 1.2 Literature Review 1.3 Research Question 1.4 Goals and Objectives 1.5 Methodology

CHAPTER n Historical Background

CHAPTER 111 Introduction to the Accounts

3.1 Court Chronicles of Shahjahan 3.2 The Accounts of Francois Bernier 3.3 The Accounts of Niccolao Manucci 3.4 The Accounts of Harriet Tytler 3.5 The Accounts of Edward Vibart 3.6 Shahjahanabad Compiled from Texts 3.7 Description of the Postal System

CHAPTER IV British Changes to the Palace-Complex

CHAPTER V Rationalizing the Alterations

CHAPTER VI Physical and Symbolic Presence

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The subject of the following study deals specifically with S&ihjahlnibid. It sets

out the framework for why the British singled out certain quarters after the Sepoy

Rebellion of 1857. The guiding line of inquiry here is how these quarters were altered

after 1857. Present day urban problems arising because these changes are not relevant.

The focus is on understanding the relationship the Palace-Complex had with its

immediate environs.

t . 1 RATIONALE

".. .the traditional unserfconscious process of mohallah formation have yielded

similar patterns in the more private parts of the city. In spite of substantial deterioration

in social structure, this mohallah organization still provides a valuable basis for

identification with places and groups. Thus without the benefit of conscious planning,

one of the fundamental objectives of urban design has been achieved. This son of

structure, of course, is a feature of almost all traditional cities. Again, there is a message

for planners working in the third world. Look very closely both at your goals and the

slums you would like to clear (Noe 1982, p. 19)." Incongruities of the past provide a

valuable framework to understand urban growth in present day situations. This can later

lead to a series of open ended questions, applicable to all city-dwellers:

i. What were the various factors that conditioned contemporary urban growth

and problems? What can we learn from this?

ii. Colonial city-planning suited the needs of the few but how did the indigenous

population adapt to these "reprisals" ?

iii. How does our understanding of a developing corntry, having been an ex-

colony, carry any bearing on urban and housing design?

iv. What are the links between environment, social organization, and behavior-? I f

any, how are they reflected arcl~itecturally?

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In selecting aiihjahhiibiicl as a case-study there are some basic components

which comprise this research. These components, when used to delineate the area of

interest, identify key issues of the problem. Aspects pertinent only to the topic keep the

focus within the proposed parameters.

The component of the mohdlah carries with it a sweeping range of information. To

understand this urban phenomenon it is necessary to concern the study with other

traditional systems in place. Information obtained should relate to the urban

geography and history of &&hjahihiibid [relevant authors: J. Abu-Ltcghod, P.

Germeraad] .

When looked at in detail, the mohallah and the Palace-Complex in S&ihjahZniibiid

have adopted the tides that have shaped its contemporary society and environment.

The object of the study would be to serve as a historical link to understand the

formation and meaning of urbanization patterns and the "spatial structuring" of a

society [relevant authors: Anthony King, Eckart Ehlars, Thomas Kraff,, Samuel Noe,

J m l Mdik. R. Fonseca, N. Gupta, R. Fryckenberg, Shovan Saha] .

Although umbilically tied to its physical morphology, ~ j a h h ~ b i i d ' s social

structuring of society is imperative to comprehend, not only to understand the social

and political relationships the Muslims had amongst themselves but with their

immediate neighbors. h doing so, a tangential relationship is revealed between

human activity and the physical making of cities [relevant authors: A. Popovic,

Warren Fusfeld, Jamal Maiik, P. Spear, I. Banga, Hameeda Nup i ] .

What ramifications did the Sepoy Rebellion have on S&hjahhabiid? The scope is

much more Limiting: it dealt with the distinctive effect the Rebellion of 1857 had on

the walled city. British attitudes towards m j a h h i b i i d changed, distinctively

different to what they had been prior to 1857 [relevant authors: B. Cohn, R. Irving,

Ainslee Embree. F. W. Buckler, Eckmt Ehlars, Thomas Krafft, Samuel Noe, Jamal

Malik, K. C. Yadnv] .

These components form a methodology for researching the changes which took

place in an existing urban fabric. Using travel accounts, key historical events and

documentation of prevalent traditions can lend a picture towards how ~ i i h j d ~ k i i b f i d was

changed. This not only speaks 4 a physical change in the city's morphology but a

prevalent change of attitudes in Imperial ranks. Consequently, "it might be pointed oict

that wban history invariably involves problems of conceptualization, and we clarify the

concepts that are crucial to our understanding of the urban phenomena, the stridy can

never transcend being no more than a mere historical narration (Mudbidri 1983, p. 3 ) . "

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION

How did the British occupation of the Palace-Complex affect &iihjahiiniibiid after the

Sepoy Rebellion in 1857?

1.4 GOALS AND OBECTIVES

The notion of empire, the belief in one entity by forced privilege legitimately

ruling over another, gave rise to some very potent tendencies in the social practice of

design. How did the British identify a functioning Mughd city? How did they go about

changing it? How did the ahjahhPblld function prior to 1857? These questions, nested

within the thesis statement, are the identified prerogatives of the thesis. They are the

prerequisites to understand the attributes of a once prosperous city. A formal analysis of

Sh&jahihiib.bgd and its morphology yield decisive aspects of its urban fabric, an important - tool for judging any city. The Rebellion thus becomes a vehicle for highlighting the

unique features of S&hjahhiib3d's urbanity.

1.5 METHODOLOGY

Within the research scope, the sources used will be determined by key words such

as S&ihjahindbGd, Palace-Complex, and Sepoy Rebellion. It will limit itself from the

time of the Rebellion to the completion of the Town Hall in 1865. The focus will be on

particular architectural changes to the Palace-Complex and its immediate environs by the

British. What ramifications did the change carry with it? These have been broken down

within the Literature Review. Research, primarily, was done using sources in libraries.

archives, and special collections. This entailed the use of the facilities at the Islamic.

McLennan, and Blackader Libraries at McGill University and the Canadian Center for

Architecture in Montreal.

PLATE 1

The historical evolution of the walled city of Delhi. (A) The original site with Islam Shah's old fort on thc river and the ruins of Firombad south of the dottcd line. (B) The designed infnsvucture of Shahjahuabad. (C) Amas destroyed by thc British. iD) The present-day city dcveiopment (Noe 198 I ) .

PLATE 2

A map showing Sultanate India (Hardy 1972)

PLATE 3

Mughal power at its widest effective extent (Hardy 1972).

PLATE 4

Models of urban order in m "Islamic city" according to various authors (Ehlcn 1993).

PLATE 5

Models of urban order in an "Islamic city" according to various au~hon (Ehlcrs 1993).

CHAPTER I1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Chapter two will deal with a history of Shihjahihiib~d. History is not conceived

as an independent entity but as an encompassing manifestation of culture, religion and

architecture. This discourse played a pivotal role in forming and stoking political

affiliations prior to the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857. The object of this chapter, then, would

be to serve as a historical link to understand the formation and meaning of British

attitudes towards !SJiihjah5nlbiid.

The British assumed the role of caretakers in S&ihjahhibbad 1803. Built on the

remains of older cities it had been a Mughal residence since being built in I639 by the

Mughai Emperor Sqilhjahh. It was a walled city, bordered by the Jurnna River on the

east, and cradling a monumental patace-complex, the Red Fort, built between 1644-1658.

An east-west axis, along with a north-south axis, served as the main planning accents of

Shiihjahiidbiid with the rest of the city being built through infill. The mohallahs, - mentioned in later chapters were directly ordered around these axes and the Palace-

Complex. This chapter provides the background for subsequent chapters which document

the British changes to S&hjah5nibid.

Why was there such importance attached historically to the site of Old Delhi?

Why the many aspirants to power? There were six cities on the site before S&hjahh

built his capital, and countless settlements. In relation to the rest of the subcontinent

Delhi occupied a position of unique strategic importance. It had always been said that the

"master of Delhi is the potential master of Hindustan and, since the wealth of India is to

be found in Hindustan, its master is the potential master of the whole peninsula (Spear

1969, pp. 3)." Geographically the site was on the alluvial plain of the Ganges and the

Jumna, protected by the Himalayas in the north, and the Rajputana desert in the south. In

such a manner, it bridged the Punjab and the north-west with the rest of India. To the

north-west there were no geographical follies of any defensive worth until the Indus was

reached. The mountains beyond carried little defensive value as the "Afghan passes

descend steeply on the Indian side but only gently on the Afghan. The neighbors of India

are forever looking down on the plains of India; India is forever looking up to the

forbidding mountain ranges. The only way to make these passes safe is to control both

sides, as the Mughais did from the time of Akbar to that of Muhammad Shah, and as the

British Government did on the restricted scale (Ibid. 2)". It was out of these very passes

that the Ghaznavid ruler Mahmood began his subcontinent incursions. Every summer

(circa. 1000AD) he methodically spent his forces down upon the plains plundering coffers

and despoiling temples, caring little for colonization or conversion. Had Mahmood

decided to take Delhi, the whole of India would have been spread open before him until

the fertile rice-paddies of Bengal. This strategical fact was recognized by every desirous

power and the possession of Delhi became instrumental.

CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF DELHI ORDER 1 I 2 3 4

5 6 I1 7 nr 8 9 rv 10 v 11 12 13 VI

14 VII 15

DATE 900BC 1020AD 1052 1180

1288 1301 132 1-23 1325 1327 I354 1415 1425 1530-56

1638 1912

SETTLEMENT Indraprastha Suraj Kund La1 Kot Qila Rai Pithora Kilo kheri S iri Tughlakabad Adilabad Jahan panah Ferozabad Khirabad Mubarakabad Dinpanah Sher Garb Shahjahanabad Delhi

FOUNDERS Yodhistril Anang Pol Prithvimj Chnuhan

Muiz-ud-din Kaiquabad Allaudin Khiliji Gayasudin Tughlak Mohammad Tughlak Mohammad Tughlak Feroz Shah Tughlak Khirakhan Mubarak Shah Humayun Sher Shah Shahjahan British Capital

Roman numerds depict the seven cities of Delhi. From Gordon R. Heam's Seven Cities of Delhi, 1906.

The Mahabharata, in the earliest reference to a settlement of Delhi, mentioned a

city, Indraprastha, built along the banks of the lumna. Cunningham dated the city at

around the fifteenth century BC (Chopra 1970, pp. 3). The site of the settlement came

into possession of the Pandavas who built lofty palaces and forts drawing the envy of

potential usurpers, eventually becoming one of the five locations where the epic war of

Mahabrarata was fought. The city retained its momentous position for the next thirty

generations until being relegated in the ranks of the Empire when the court was

transferred to Hastinapura.

Subsequently Delhi slipped into obscurity and there is "no reference of

Indraprastha..in any of the works of the Greek writers. who chronicled the campaigns of

Alexander the Great in the folcrrh century BC (Chopra 1970, pp. 4). " The advent of the

thirteenth century AD brought to the subcontinent its first foreign rulers. It took

foreigners to fully realize the strategic importance Delhi held and this grip was not

relaxed until Independence was established in 1947. Qutb-ud-din. the founder of the

Turkish lineage in India erected the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque from the materials of

demolished temples. He also commenced the building of the Qutb Minx in around 1200

AD. This most likely was a tower of victory based on a model of the one at Ghazni. The

Minar was completed in 1220 AD by Qutb-ud-din's successor who then formally made

Delhi the capital of his Muslim Empire. This dynasty, known as the Mamluks, managed

to safe-keep Delhi from Mongol attacks by heavily fortifying the city's defenses and

"added. ..splendor to his corirt by modehg it on the style of the old Persian monarchs

and introduced Persian etiquette, ceremonies, and festivities The destruction of the

Khilafat of Baghdad (by the Mongols) made Delhi the asylum of many a Muslim crown

and a refuge of the exiled princes (Chopra 1970, pp. 10). "

Through a couplet of the treacheries the Khalijis came to rule over Delhi. Their

rule made Delhi a juggernaut with Ala-ud-din going as far as bestowing the title of Dar-

ul-khilafah (seat of the Khilafat) upon the city. Literary figures and scholars flocked the

Delhi Court such as Amir EChusrau and Amir Hasan. New suburbs and townships were

built, all testifying to grandiose architectural designs. The Ala-i-Danuaza, an extension to

the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque; the Hall of the Thousand Pillars of Siri, protected by

massive walls against the looming threat of Mongol incursions; the Haw Khus, a cistern;

and the Alai Minar, an unfinished pillar, initially began to surpass Qutb Minar, all

reflected the importance Delhi commanded at the time.

As with all royal lineages the Khaljis fell victims to the intrigues of a nobleman

and were soon replaced by the ex-governor of Punjab, Ghazi Tughlak, who become the

founder of the Tughlak dynasty in 1320 AD. The next eleven rulers of this dynasty built

three cities in the Delhi vicinity: Tughlakabad, Jahanpanah, and Ferozabad. The new

capital of Tughlakabad was built in about four years for "twice the population of the

medieval city of London (Singh 1989, pp. 15). " Within a generation this fourth Delhi was

abandoned when Ghazi Tughlak was assassinated. His son and killer, Mohammed

Tughlak, built walls to link his new city Jahanpanah with that of his father's, but never

quite succeeded in populating it.

Whereas Muhammad Tughlak' s reign was described as tyrannical, his successor

Firuz Tughlak, devoted his energies towards easing the suffering caused by his

predecessor. Firozabad, his capital, and the fifth Delhi (1354) was moved to the banks of

the Jumna. The capital flourished with considerable use of the river, necessitated by

commerce and transport. During Firuz Tughlak's reign, buildings and monuments were

restored and built, (and in Lane Poole's description was "the Windsor of Delhi"). It was

an "open c i ~ , without a wall around it and the shape was more or less a half hexagon

with the base facing the river. Its suburbs joined the subrirbs of the city which was in

existence side by side with the new one.. . Feroz Shah who, in addition to all these brought

the great tank Hauz Khas into its highest development, including the establishment of a

university on its shores (Guha 2983, p. 1 I)."

In the fust week of December, 1398, Delhi was ransacked by Timur the Lame.

This ancestor of Babur forced the last Tughlak ruler to flee to Gujarat and acquired the

immense wealth of Delhi. After leaving, all signs of material prosperity vanished from the

city. For three months Delhi remained without a government and with a severely reduced

population. Abdul Qadir Badauni, a historian at the time, recorded, "those of the

inhabitants who were lefr, died of famine and pestilence while for two months not a bird

moved wing in Delhi. "

The Lodi Dynasty seized Delhi through a coup in 1450. During their seventy-five

year rule they built many monuments in and around Delhi until Babur, the first Mughal

Emperor, took the city on April 24, 1526. While he chose Agra as his capital, his son,

Humanyun, shifted the capital back to Dinpanah in Delhi. Credit for the building of this

city was also given to Sher Shah, who ousted Humanyun briefly and ruled from Delhi. He

expanded and extended the Purana Qila all the way to Feroz Shah Kotla. After

Humanyun, Delhi was left for some time in limbo as successive Mughal Emperors, Akbar

and Jahangir, preferred Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, and Lahore as their capitals. All this

changed with aiihjahh.

Shihjhjahiiniibiid was built for royalty but filled by the poor. A wall which - encompassed the town plan, controlled both physical and social growth. This resulted in

mohallahs, cohesive units formed around key institutions or professional neighborhoods.

Mohallahs were marked by religious, economic and social liaisons which legitimized the

power of key individuals and institutions. There was "an internal hierarchy, of mosques,

[which] was part of the concept of the city, a fact which becomes evident from the

Emperor's allocation of land to the shurafa[Muslim gentry]. It was repeated in the

decree of &lhjah& concerning the construction of mosques primarily from east to the

west, or north to south, following the imperial perspective. This offcia1 city planning

necessarily had to manifest itself in a hierarchy of mosques itself : the royal Jimi'

Mosque was succeeded by eight elite (begumi, amiri) mosques ... at the other end of this

hierarchy stood the so called mohallah-mosques, numbering about two-hundred (Ehlers

1993, pp. 51). "

Mohallahs had inherent rules governing its physical morphology. Regional

hierarchies within Shghjahhbtid gave rise to spatial surroundings unique to the type of

quarter. These quarters were embedded in a complex weave with their norms not only

relating to economic dependencies but also to a layered social net. So although mohallahs

bore the names of the dominant culture or service sector which settled there, for instance

Mohallah-i-Punjibi (Punjabis' quarter) or Mohallah-i-Sawdiigar (traders' quarter), it was

the "identity-giving religious institution" which was key to locating these specific

professions. It was this that determined the life inside as well as outside the mohallah

(Ehlers 1993, p. 46).

Shiihjahh planned his capital after Isfahan. The twin architectural foci of the city - were the Palace-Complex and the Jumma' Mosque. Boulevards extended from them both,

ordering and emphasizing the magnificence of the Mughal court. The traveler Bernier

was impressed by the capital. "Bernier, who lived in the city soon afer it had been briilt

in 1638, was struck by the extent to which ~ h r rcorlornic attd social as well as the political

life hinged on the monarch, the court and the ... He saw great opulence and cr grelit

abundance of provisions, but also great sqcalor. The city had some stone and some brick

palaces, ringed by mud and thatch houses. The merchants worked and lived in second

storeys of the buildings and arcades along the two boulevards radiating from the palace

(Gupta 1981, pp. 2)." Mohallahs, thus, had formal site plans. conceived not as

independent entities as in Lahore, but very much related to their immediate surroundings.

Consequently, the shurafa (Islamic gentry), settled along the main boulevards keeping a

direct link to the Emperor's palace. Other "social groups hierarchically settled around

the palace according to their respective social status. Important bazaars, markets, soon

developed along the connecting lines of important institutions like the Fatahpcirf Masjid,

Q6dE kd Hawd (cistern of the qazi), the Jiimi' Masjid and the Kalin Masjid (Ehlers 1993,

p. 44). "

Places of religious discourse structured mohallahs. Christians settled in the

southeast, the region surrounding St. James' Church, while the Hindus predominantly

resided west of the Jumma Mosque and in North-Billimarib just southeast of the

Fatahpan' Mosque. Islamic mohallahs were located close to all the large mosques for

"according to a decree of ahj jahdn, in every lane, bazaar, square and street a mosque

was to be found (Blake 1986, p. M)." Mosques for all Muslims were material

manifestations of their culture and always worked in conjunction with Islamic institutions

to structure the mohallah. These various institutions played pivotal roles in forming and

stoking political affiliations prior to the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857.

ShiihjhjahWs son, Aurhgzeb, and his successors spent most of their time in city- - camps, in the Deccan As a consequence, the physical morphology of fiiihjahbiibiid

changed very little. The Mughal power was waning, with each successive generation

leaving the city more vulnerable. Nadir Shah, emperor of Persia, wreaked destruction in

1739 and, "like Timur in 1398, he attacked not to conquer but only to loot. He carried

away many camelloads of wealth from Dellzi, the Peacock Throne crowning it d l . He

also ordered a massacre, which filled Chandni Chowk with corpses and made his name

in north India comparable with that of Wallenstein in central Europe in the 17th century

(Ehlers 1993, p. 34). " This brought building and commerce in the city virtually to a halt,

bringing a sharp decrease to the city's population. Many other groups attacked Delhi with

Nadir Shah's departure. One such group from the south-west, the Marathas, wanted

control of Delhi but were defeated "by the troops of the British Enst India Company in

1803 at the Battle of Pntparganj (across the river from the palace) but the Mughals found

that they had only exchanged one master for another. Delhi, with Agra, formed part of

the British booty. (Ehlers 1993, p. 34). " A victorious General Lake entered Delhi in 1803

at the invitation of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alm, who was unable to protect his city's

inhabitants. The East India Company had now formally taken control of Delhi. Receiving

its charter from England's Parliament in 1600 to monopolize trade in the eastern

hemisphere, the East India Company had become a dominant power in India by 1761.

Later, Bahadur Shah, the last Mughal emperor, was no more than a pensioned

puppet ..." and it was quite evident that his empire was actually limited to the area within

the walls of his palace (Ehlers 1993, pp. IS). " Soon after 1803, British influence in

Shtihjahhbtid became quite visible. Colonid culture was put-up in two main areas of the - city. Inside the walls, two European enclaves existed north-west and south of the royal

complexes. Northwest of the city there was a four to five square mile development. This

was used by the British for military and civil administration.

During the Rebellion the conditions in the city were chaotic. Shops were looted

and houses were burnt. On March 15, 1857 captive Christian prisoners were killed by the

Emperors retainers in the courtyard of the palace. The British took control of the Ridge,

just north of the city's walls, and prepared for a siege on Deb. On September 1 1 the

British breached the city walls and on the twentieth of the same month the fort was

breached. Everybody in the Fort was shot dead ;~qd Bahadur Shah was banished to

Rangoon in 1858 for posterity. "The military authorities insisted that a fine should be

imposed on all supporters of the late regime, and it was genera fly held that as Hindtis

were as a community well disposed towards the British and the M~islims as a commrinity

were hostile, the Hindus shoclld be exempted from any penalty (Sen 1957, pp. 1181."

With the Rebellion of 1857 it can be assumed that the sepoys acted out of

allegiance to the last Mughd emperor, Bahadur Shah II. As a direct descendent of

Shiihjahh, he was allowed to slip into this "central-place system of dominance". Support - which "began as a fight for religion ended as a war of independence, for there is not the

slightest doubt that the rebels wanted to get rid of the alien government and restore the

old order of which the King of India was the righrfrtl representative (Pearson 1985,

p17). "

Bahadur Shah's involvement in the failed Rebellion resulted in a series of

measures taken by the British to prevent such an event from happening again. The Crown.

scared that the Company would lose such a valuable commodity as India, assumed direct

government of the sub-continent in 1858. The British also no longer sought the

acquiescence of local authorities, but imprinted the presence of a military force in

Sh&jahhAb~d. These developments had definite effects on the "socio-spatial structure - of the civ (Guhn 1994, p. 59). " The Emperor was exiled, the palace confiscated, mosques

were sacked and a cantonment established within the Palace-Complex. With decisive

aspects of its urban fabric being Islamic, and influences like the Naqshbandi Sufis, who

developed many of these institutions into centers of political dissent and propaganda, the

British had no choice but to change and police the city of ~iihjahhiibiid.

Over time, &ghiahiWbbild absorbed the tides that have shaped its contemporary

society and environment. The object of this chapter was to serve as a historical link to

later chapters. These later chapters address the formation and meaning of urbanization

patterns dong with the spatial structuring of its society. Umbilically tied to its physical

morphology, S&hjahiiniibiid9s social structuring of society is imperative to comprehend.

This was based on social and political relationships the residents had amongst themselves

and with their immediate neighbors. Under such conditions what ramifications did the

Sepoy Rebellion have on Shiijahhbiid? The scope is much more limiting. It deals with

a distinctive effect the Rebellion had on the city within a particular area. British attitudes

towards S&iahjahiiniibiId changed, distinctively different to what they had been prior to

1857. Using the components of historical narratives and the documentation of traditions a

framework for researching the changes which took place to the Palace-Complex can be

constructed. This not only speaks of a physical change in the city's morphology but of a

prevalent change in Imperial attitudes. Consequently, "it might be pointed orit that rirban

history invariably involves problems of conceptrtalization, and rtnless rve clarify the

concepts that are crucial to our understanding ofthe urban phenomena, the study can

never transcend being no more than a mere historical narration (Mudbidri 1983, p. 3) . "

CHAPTER 111 INTRODUCTION TO THE ACCOUNTS

Historicdly, the site of aiihjahhiibiid cradled both incredible wealth and

immense power. In turn, this attracted scores of travelers. Their assessments of the city

and of daily-life were noted in diary accounts. Text as such becomes prescriptive and

prelusive in understanding the Walled City. f in Battuta of Tangiers noted of Tughlak's

Del hi. "[It] is o vast and magnificent city. .. The walls which surrortnd rhis city are simply

unparalleled. There is room inside the wall for horsemen and infantry to march from one

end of the town to the other. ..@attutu 1929)." The waning of one Delhi brought the rise

of another, and as the Mughal Empire consolidated itself, Europeans started taking notice

of the justly-fabled riches.

Some European kings, seeking financid patronage, sent emissaries out to Delhi

while other individuals struck out on their own to seek personal wealth. Contemporaries.

Franqois Bernier and Niccolao Manucci were two such voyagers. Their accounts remain

the stalwarts of western historiettes. The two authors were very different men with very

different angles. Fraqois Bemier was a highly educated French doctor who was in high

demand by the Mughal aristocracy. For all Bernier's elite eurocentricism, Niccolao

Manucci was a very much a man-for-the-moment, running away from home as a

stowaway and then becoming an artilleryman in the Mughal army. Having sided with

Dara Shukoh, in 'the battle of succession' for the Mughal throne, Manucci's writings are

colored with a strong bias against Aurangzeb and the system that brought his "patron"

down. Both accounts were exceedingly heterogeneous ... historical events alternating with

personal escapades, and stories with fables. The two Delhi's, then, are depicted quite

differently. "With their two very different viewpoints, one the angst-struck French

intellectual, the other the ex-con and hard nosed Venetian man of action. Bernier and

Munucci colour in the gilded outlines provided by the Mughais' own court chronicles and

their miniature paintings (Dalrymple 1993, p. 19.5). "

Later, when the British were digging heels into the Walled City, accounts were

kept by a wide assortment of people. These ranged from a woman who gave birth during

the British siege of Delhi to a British soidier who was part of the Delhi garrison. These

descriptions defer from their European predecessors in that they abet the British Empire's

control over Delhi and becomes, as Curzon referred to Orientalist studies, as the

'necessary furniture' of empire. Colonel Edward Vibart illustrates this in writing,

"Indeed, for several weeks sribsequent to the capture of the city, wholesale executions of

miitineers and other rebels were carried out daily. These wretches used fo be stncng up

on a gallows erected for the purpose on a plarfonn in front of the Kotwallee, [this] was

mdotcbtedly necessary to instill terror in the minds of the tcnwavering and those still bent

on defying our authority (Vibrat 1898, p. 151 ). "

Lnayat Khan's Shah Jehan Nama is the one text used, not logged by a foreign

traveler. Alth~ilgh sycophantic, the account differed in no way from the European

accounts. It has its own agenda; with depictions of S&hjahh's obsession with his unique

place in history. The chronicles, thus, unfold the pageany of SJiihjahiin's reign - spanning from affairs of the state and court, to grandiose architectural projects.

The consideration of such anecdotes is instrumental in depicting features

perceived as important in the city. Thus authenticity is lent for speculating British

instituted changes in S&hjahiiniibiid, dter the 1857 Rebellion. This raises the study above

mere speculation and brings it to the realm of credibility. The following excerpts from the

Shah Jehan Nama, were descriptions of how these people saw the city of SJ5ahjahihibiidd.

The emphasis is on the Royal Paface and its immediate environs.

3.1 THE COURT CHRONICLES OF m ~ ~ ~ H h

The initial chronicles of S&ihjahiin were written in three volumes called the

Padshah Nama by 'Abd al-Hamid Lahori and Muhammad Waris. The flowery text

praised &ghjahiin to an extent that his mortality became questionable. On December 10,

1657, shortly after the completion of the third volume of the Padshah Nama. a noble by

the name of Inayat Khan was assigned to the prestigious post of Superintendent-of-the-

Royal Library. After inspecting the voluminous text he stated that they were of an

"unmanageable length" and undertook the project of an 'edited version', known today as

the Shah Jehan Nama. He stated in a preface, "...it occurred to the writer of these pages

that he and his ancestors had long been devoted servants to the imperial dynasty, it

wouid be well for him to write the history of the iiZ~istrioccs reign of His Majesty in clear

and simple style ... considerable use to ordinary readers (Begley 1990, p. 3)."

The one image most prevalent in the Szuh Jehan Numu wu one of the Mughal

Emperor arriving at S&ihjahSniibid on the Jumna River by boat. A typical entry by hayat

Khan read:

"Beginning of 1063 A.H., and Auspicious Entry into the Metropolis of &?hjahhn6bdd.

On Friday the l lth of Muharram 1063 (12 December 16521, corresponding to the 22nd

of the solar month of AZW, which was the time appointed for the sublime arrival at the

metropolis of S&ihjahdncibBd, His Majesty proceeded on board a boat and entered the

regal palace by the gate facing the river. On this auspicious occasion, the mansab of the

Sdtan Su!aiman Shikoh, who was governor of the province of Kabul, was augmented by

1,000 and fued at 9,000 (Begley 1990, p. 476)."

The river provided a convenient means of getting from place to place. This was

especially true during the monsoon season when roads and routes were inundated or even

washed away. Although the Mughals did not have a strong navy, their admidty was well

equipped to mobilize an effective armada for rapid marches and displays of strength. As

recorded by Inayat Khan, aiihjahiin, often traveled along the Jumna from Agra to

Shiihjahhiibad. And in the summer, when the city was stricken with epidemics and heat - waves the Mughal Coun would 'flotilla' its way up to Mukhlispur, known for its cooler

climate, north of the metropolis (Begley 1990, p. 535). Boats. ornamented with rich

tapestries, wen always kept in a state of readiness. An entourage of nobility and

mansabdars always followed the royal barge. One important achievement of !!&&jahb's

navy was the defeat and expulsion of the Portuguese from Satgaon, Hughli, in 1632. Six

hundred vessels were involved in this conflict (Farooque 1977, p. 1 19).

A processional entrance to the Palace-complex was a show of Mughal might. The

importance of which can be seen when the Emperor returned to S&hjahhiibiid after any

absence of time. Any processional entrance to the city was carried with the utmost pomp

and show. The Emperor camped outside the city, giving the procession time to gather

before setting off amidst a marching band caparisoned with elephants and horses. An

arrival by boat on the Jumna made no difference. The Emperor still camped outside the

city before marching over-ground into S&ihjahhiibiid. Inayat Khan wrote. " ... the

monarch whose throne is firmament, having boarded a boat at the landing ghat of

Khawaju Khizr where his camp was pitched. started off in joy and gladness for the new

metropolis. At the precise moment that the ephemeres had declared to be propitious, His

Majesv pit ted the river and proceeded to make a ceremonioiis entry into the splendid

palaces of the fort (Begley 1990. p. 408). " Atop a throne strapped to an elephant and

surrounded by nobles and ministers, the Emperor would enter the city. "In this order the

Imperial procession wended its ways through the bazaars of old Drhi and entered the

Fort by the hhori Gate. They all dismounted. The Emperor sat down for a while in the

Hall of Public and Private Audiences in snccession ...[a nd]finaIIy ... retmted to the harem

(Mathur 1968, p. 30)."

These processions, like the Imperial Durbar, were used to validate and sustain the

structure of society in Mughal India. They were 'acts of incorporation' which kept

exacting rules for the placement of people and objects. Such spatial ordering produced

unique rooms, necessary in creating and representing relationships with the ruler. Another

example of this was a daily routine aiIhjah3.n religiously maintained. He would appear,

at sun-rise, at a jhoroka facing the lumna's bank. Crowds of people flocked to the

balcony submitting their appeals to S&hjah&. After an hour, a military pageant passed

by for review signaling an end to this morning session. These cases were not dealt with

on the spot but later, before the Emperor at the Diwan-i-Am or Diwan-i-Khus. Anything

straying from this routine caused public unrest. This happened on September 16, 1657,

when a8hjaM.n fell sick to "constipation and smgury". He could not appear at the

jharoka nor at the Audience Halls. Within a week he had to make an appearance "at the

jharoka window of the royal sleeping chamber in the Fort at aihjuhrindbid, in order to

reassure the populace who had become greatly disturbed by his absence (Begley 1990, p.

Another aspect of the Fort-Complex that hayat Khan goes lengths to describe was

the history and construction of the canal which supplied water to 5&iihjahhibiid. He

attributed the initial making of the canal to Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlak. This silted up in

the course of time. It was later repaired under Akbar's reign but only irrigated the

governor's jagir (land). When the time came to construct the 'new metropolis', Shiihjahln

ordered the canal to be fixed. A new channel was excavated from that spot to the new

"regal residence". Thus extended, it was given the name Nahr-i-Bihisht or the "Stream of

Paradise" (Begley 1990, p. 407). Water was an extremely important element in the

Wailed City. Not only was it channeled to the various gardens but it also furnished the

hamam (bath) with all its requirements. The hamam was made up of three apartments

which were partitioned by comdors. Two of these apartments faced the river and due to

their relative isolation were a favorite place of the Emperor to conduct important

business. Another place for transacting secrets was the Shah Burl (the King's Tower).

This was situated in the north-eastem corner of the Palace-Complex. The Nahr-i-Bihisht,

here again, suppiied the center of the tower's northern wall with a marble water cascade

(Mathur 1968, p. 17). Water, quite literally, gave life to these structures of Shiihjahfmibiid

and was mentioned time and again in the accounts of Fran~ois Bernier.

3.2 THE ACCOUNTS OF FRANCOIS BERNlER 11656-16681

Franpis Bernier was born in Joue September 25, 1620 at a time when Louis X.UI

was King of France and Jahangir Emperor of India. A physiologist who became a doctor,

he subsequently went to Paris, embarking on a life-long voyage. Bernier began in

Palestine and then went on to Egypt where he sailed for Swat. Reaching the subcontinent,

Bernier was caught between Prince Aurangzeb and Prince Dara Shukoh who were

fighting for the Mughal throne. Dara had asked Bernier to stay with him as his physician.

But when the young prince fled to Sindh, defeated by his brother, Bernier proceeded to

Shiihjahlnlbild done. From there, he went to Lahore, Kashrnir, and Sheraz. He arrived - back in Marseilles, where he had his travels published in 1670. Years later he died in

Paris on September 22, 1688.

Bernier talked of Delhi as rivaling Paris in "beauty, extent and number of

inhabitants." The beauty of Delhi was different than that of European cities due to the

dictates of climate, "that what is usefill and proper in at Paris, London or Amsterdam,

would be entirely out of place at Delhi; insomuch that if it were possible for any one of

those great capitals to change place with the metropolis of the Indies, it ~ t ~ ~ u l d become

necessary to throw down the greater pan of the civ, and to rebuild it on a totally

different plan (Bernier 1891, p. 240). " He noted that the city was ordemd by two main

streets. "They run in a straight line nearly as far as the eye can reach; but the one

leading to Lahor gate is much the longer. In regard to houses the two streets are exactly

alike. As in our Place Royals, there are arcades on both sides; with the difference,

however, that they are only brick, and thar [he fop serves for a terrace and has no

additional building ... The houses of the merchants are built over... warehouses, at fhe back

of the arcades (Bernier 1891, p. 245). " Houses were designed with open areas where they

could sleep, whether it be in courts, gardens or on terraces. These were assiduously

watered to allow cooling during Delhi's excessive summers and were interspersed with

extensive gardens and open spaces. The citadel, as Bernier called it, contained the Palace

and other Royal Apartments. Its walls were taller and thicker than that of the city's, and

except for the side on the river, it was bordered by a deep ditch, faced with rock and filled

with water (Bernier 189 1, p.243).

As the palatial physician, Bemier had access to the inner sanctums of the royal-

complex. After describing the Nagor-Kanay (Naqqar Khana) and the Am-Kas (Diwan-i-

Am and Diwan-i-Khas) he made his way to the Seraglio where he wrote, "...the Seraglio

contains beautiful apartments, separated and more or less spacious and splendid

according to the rank and income ufthe females. Nearly every chamber has its reservoir

of running water at the door; on every side are gardens, delighrful alleys, shady retreats,

streams, grottoes. .. Within the walls of this enchanting place, inme, no oppressive or as

inconvenient heat is felt. The eunuchs speak with extravagant praise of a small tower,

facing the river, which is covered with plates ... (Bernier 189 I , p.267). "

Another structure which Bernier described in some depth was the Karuansara (the

sariie or caravanserai). Again he compared it to the Place Royale except that here the

arches are separated from each other with partitions and have small rooms towards the

rear. Above the arcades runs a gallery, all around the building, with the same number of

chambers as there are below. "This place is the rendezvous of the rich Persian, Usbek,

and other foreign merchants, who in general may be accommodated with empty

chambers (Bernier 1891, p.281)."

Compared to Niccolao Manucci, Bernier provided in his accounts a more refined

sense of detail. This is not to disregard the writings of Manucci, for his descriptions have

an anecdotal air to them. "His book has more action in it: rather than fussing about the

relative merits of Parisian and Mughal architecture (Dalrymple 1994, p. 194). " These are

his accounts.

3.3 THE ACCOUNTS OF NICCOLAO M M C C I

In 1653, when Manucci was fourteen, he ran away from home in Venice and

stowed away on a ship bound for Srnyma. On the ship he befriended Henry, Lord

Bellomont, who was on his way to Persia as ambassador of the exiled Charles 11. After

much travel through Asia Minor they finally reached Isfahan where they remained for a

year. With directives to raise money for the deposed Charles [I and not able to attain them

in Persia, they were then instructed to move to the courts of the Mughal Empire. They set

journey to Delhi when, just three days from Agra, Bellomont fell ill and died. Manucci

went on to Delhi and obtained an introduction to Shiihjahh's eldest son Dara who

enlisted him in his service as an artilleryman. Dara's brother, Aurangzeb, revolted against

their father and marched on to Agra. He defeated both Dara and SJilhjahfin. Manucci,

who had marched with Dara, made his way to Delhi and then to Lahore where Dara was

raising a new army. Dara, losing again, was executed by Aurangzeb. "Returning with

other European artillerymen to Delhi, [Manucci] refurd service with Aurangzeb

because of his great dislike for that Emperor. From that time he tells his own story, land

that of the reign of Aurungzeb (Manltcci 1957, p. 13)."

Manucci began his descriptions of Delhi with its construction. ShShjahhiibiid was

a city in the shape of an "imperfect moon" with twelve gates, and the older cities of Delhi

forming the suburbs. The walls of the newest Delhi were made of half brick and half

stone with bastions at every one hundred "paces". The primary gates of the city lead to

A p and Lahore. The chief bazaars were those that corresponded with the streets leading

to the fortress and capped with the city's two primary gates (Manucci 1989, p. 178).

Towards the east was the Royal Palace around which a number of nobles had built their

palaces. A number of other houses with thatched roofs surrounded these, which according

to Manucci wen "highly decorated and commodious inside." The Royal Fortress had

"two gates lending into the city, there being a large open space in the midst. Shuhjnhan

planted two large gardens, one on the north side, the other on h e sorcth side, and for the

reason that the river Jarnnah does not rise high enough to permit of its irrigating these

gardens, S&?hjahBn, at a great expense...constr~icted a deep canal ... one hrindred leagnes

from Dihli (Manucci 1989, p. 178). " Important state visitors were brought through these

two gates. Usually orders were given that along the route the streets and shops should be

decorated, much in the same way for the Emperor's passing. The Royal Palace was a city

in itself, containing the administration of justice, a harem, the state treasury vaults,

stables, apartments, kitchens and garrisons. Stability within the Palace-Complex, thus,

kept order in the rest of the city, "should firihjahrin fall ill, everybody wouldfly to amls

for the defense of their houses from the robberies and assa~ilts that would take place

(Manucci 1989, p. old 232). "

3.4 THE ACCOUNTS OF HARRIET TYTLER [l828- 18581

Harriet Tytler was born October 3, 1828 in Oude and spent a good part of her life

in India. Her claim to fame was her giving birth to a son on June 21, 1857 under heavy

barrage during the Sepoy Rebellion. Under threat of being murdered by her servant, Mrs.

Tytler left her bungalow in Delhi on May 11 for the British military encampment on the

Ridge. She was "the only lady present in camp throughout the whole siege and capture of

Delhi (Tytler 1986, p. 197)." Her autobiography presented a unique view of

Shiihjahhbiid. -

Mrs. Harriet's descriptions of Delhi read much like story. These descriptions,

neither linear nor detailed, do however paint a picture of the time. Delhi was portrayed as

such:

"They rode hard over the forty miles mid reached h e city about s i x in the morning

and went to the river gate of the Emperor's palace, calling out from below who they

were and what their mission was. The royal family immediately gave them permission

to enter, which of course they did. Anybody who has been to Delhi and seen the

palace walls from the side of the river will have noticed the gate, which leads by a

flight of steps to the beautiful apartments of the Emperor (Tytler 1986, p. 119)."

"In the first place there were no men to be seen near Delhi so soon after its

fall ... When this cavalcade reached the Golden Temple of the Chandni Chowk Hodson

called out with a stentorian voice, 'Come out you rascals to be shot', upon which the

men put up their hands in supplication and said. 'Sahib, you promised us o w

lives. '( Tytler I 986, p. 166). "

"What a pity no one will know hereafter what the home of the Emperors of DeZhi was

like ... in a little hot-weather sleeping room on the second storey above !he present

Diwan-i-am, where the King's mother had lived and died, and was now no longer

inhabited by anyone (Tytler 1986, p. 167). "

35 THE ACCOUNTS OF COLONEL EDWARD VIBART [MAY 10, I8571

It was the 'First Station' at Meerut where the native troops of the Bengal Army

broke into open insurrection. The rebellion proceeded to march on to Deihi where

Colonel Edward Vibart was a subaltern in one of the native regiments in Delhi. Being not

only in the city of Delhi, but also at the Delhi ganison, his accounts were extremely

insightful. Although writing forty years after the incident, a number of letters written at

the time to relatives helped preserve the memory-of-description of the city.

Edward Vibart stated in his observations that the walled city confined a totd

population of 160,000, consisting mostly of Muslims. Several hundred Eurasians, native

Christians, and a European community (which included missionaries, traders, civil

engineers, and government clerks) made up the much smaller minority. He described the

principal structures within the city as being the Mughal Palace-Complex and the Jumma

Mosque, two Muslim buildings of grandeur whch ordered the city. He wrote: "At this

period the titdar throne of Delhi was occupied by His Majesty, Bahadur Shah, the

octogenarian representative of the once mighty dynasty of the great Mughal; and here,

within the walls ofthis magnificent building, surrounded by debauched and linscnrpulorts

courtiers, and passing the chief portion of his time in the society of the ladies in the

harem, he used to live with regal honours in the enjoyment of a pension of 120,000

pormds per a n n m (Vibrat 1898, p. 4)."

Chandni Chowk, the street of silver, was regarded by Vibrat as the main

thoroughfare of business for Delhi. It ran due east cutting through the middle of the city

beginning at the Lahore Gate and ending in front of the "imposing" red sandstone walls

of the Palace. He went on to mention, "I fancy there were few cities in India at this

period which could have rivaled the wealth of the bazaars of Defhi, or excelled the

manufacturing skill of its inhabitants (Vibrat 1898, p.6)."

3.6 S&~HJAHANABAD COMPILED FROM TEXTS

The Royal Palace was constructed under the supervision of Makrarnat Khan,

Superintendent 4 Works, at an estimated cost of ten million rupees. Like the city, the

main entrance began with the Lahore Gate, and ran eastwards with through a succession

of courts and buildings. Along the top of the eastern wall overlooking the river lay the

Emperor's apartments. Extending vertically were the baths, Diwan-i-Am, sleeping

apartments and the Zenana, forming a T-shaped arrangement. Westwards, the two arms at

the top of the T formed subsidiary courts and buildings whilst northwards, were the

gardens, Hayat Baknsh (Giver of Life) and the Mehtab Bagh (Garden of the Moon).

Adjoining, this were the houses for the royal princes. Running north from the Delhi Gate

was a broad road. lined with houses of retainers and shops. Around the fort was a moat,

seventy feet wide and thirty feet deep adjoined to which were large gardens.

A number of palaces. apartments. courts, and gardens were removed after the

Rebellion of 1857. The factory halls (Karkhanajat), the royal stores and the stables have

disappeared (Nathur 1964, p. 10).

MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PALACE-COMPLEX S Q A W MUMTAZ MAHAL HAMAM SAWAN CHA'ITA CHOWK RANG MAHAL M O T MOSQUE BHADON COURTYARD KHAS MAHAL HIRA MAHAL ZAFAR M A W NAQQAR KHANA MUTHAMMAN BURJ SHAH BURJ NAHER-1-0 AHISSHT DIWANI-I-AM DIWAN-I-KHAS GARDENS SALIM GARH MEENA BAZAAR

3.7 DESCRIPTION OF POSTAL SYSTEM COMPILED FROM TEXTS

The Mughal Empire successfully controlled huge tracts of land with the help of an

efficient postal system and the upkeep of roads. This not only promoted the control of

distant provinces, but developed trade and commerce, contributing to the prosperity of the

land. Rivers also provided a very convenient option to the Mughais as a means of travel.

Shiihjahh often traveled along the Jumna from Delhi to Agn. Boats were always kept - ready for this journey on the eastern side of the Royal Complex. Although the postal

system was reserved only for Imperial use, city inhabitants devised arid maintained

alternative means of correspondence. Sufis and scholars were noted for their networks.

"Besides hired messengers, there were other means of sending and receiving letters.

Visitors and disciples brought letters, messages and good wishes from friends and

acquaintances. Retrcming, they took back replies, and thus the chain of correspondence

continued (Farooquee 1977, p. 160). " Mohallahs provided the social contacts necessary

for the upkeep of such a system.

The Indian Mutiny of 1857 marked an end to the complacency prevalent amongst

the British. In May the Sepoys (the native infantry) of the Bengal Army rose in rebellion

through-out Northern India. The mutinous soldiers were joined within weeks by

numerous disaffected groups, all holding grievances against the British. Suppressed by

the British, the revolt caused the Company to become a victim of its own economic

success. Direct Crown rule replaced the East India Company in 1858. In order to avert

any more challenges to their supremacy on the sub-continent, the British re-examined the

governance of their Indian possessions. "The white garrison was siibsrcmtinlly increnserl;

roads driven through the heart of the old bazaars, with the erection of military

cantonmerzts and civil stations, imposed a new order on India's cities. The construction

of a network of railways, largely completed by the 1870s, h l y subordinated India to the

commercial and military needs of the British Empire (Metcalfe 1989, p. 5.9."

Legitimizing their rule in India meant not only creating a direct link to the Mughals and

hence to India past, but also maintaining proper control. This was done systematically in

Shiihjhjahhiibiid. 'These changes will be presented in the following chapter anchored by - these accounts of the past.

PLATE 6

A view of DeIhi with the Jumma Mosque in the center. A sketch by Prince Alexis Sol tykoff from 1857 (Tytler 198 1 ).

PLATE 7

The Emperor Shah Jahan (Bernier I89 I ).

PLATE 8

A part of the Palace-Complex showing Chandni Chowk meecing the Lahore Gate. Major areas discussed in the thesis arc marked with black dots (Ehlers 1993).

PLATE 9

The Zenana (Bernier 189 I ).

PLATE 10

The Royal Bath in the Palace-Complex (Worswick 1976).

PLATE 11

A Princess in the Seraglio (Bernier 189 1 ).

PLATE 12

I

[slilmic instituitions in Shahjahanab;ld mund L 850 (Ehlers 1993).

PLATE 13

River facing front of the PalaceComplex Wibart 1898).

PLATE 14

Approaching the city horn the Bridge of Boats (Wbart 1898).

PLATE 15

tnglishrncn in front of the Palace-Complex (Tyrlcr 1986).

PLATE 16

The Diwan-i-Khass (Begley 19YO).

PLATE 17

The Diwiln-i-Am's western facade (Begley 1990).

PLATE 18

Eastern facade o f the Nnqqar Khsna (Bcglcy 1990).

PLATE 19

The Royal Throne Balconey within the Palace- Complex's Diwan-i-Am (Begley 1990).

CHAPTER IV BRITISH CHANGES TO THE PALACE-COMPLEX

"What can I wile ... the life of Delhi depends on the Fwt , Chandni C h o ~ k , she daily gatherittgs clt the

Jitmuna Bridge and the annrral Gulfaroshn. ZVhe~z all these ... rhings are no Conger there. how can Delhi

live? Yes there was a ciry of this name in the donlirtions of lndia (Ghalib 1970, p. t85)."

The morphology of S&hjahdndbiid did not drastically change until after the

Revolt. Modifications such as the house addition by the widow of Walter Reinhardt on

Chandni Chowk, (near the Palace), or the estate of Colonel Skinner built by the Kashmiri

Gate were subtle. These foreshadowed harsher changes to come. In the summer of 1857.

several "mutinying" regiments converged on Delhi from Meerut, wanting to remove the

British from power. With the city-gates battered down it took a four month siege for the

British to re-take Delhi. Then with a series of heavy handed moves, guided by an

obsession with security, the British changed the very nature of S&hjahZnSbldTs

urbanity . This was how it was done.

Just prior to the Rebellion of 1857 Delhi was still a city the Emperor SJZhjahSn

would recognize, From a rninar in the Jumma Masjid, looking east, the Iumna River still

ran almost parallel to the front of the mosque, beyond which lay barren plains. Running

along the western bank of the river the fortifications, the Palace-Complex with its streets

and courts and the multitude of buildings enclosed within, still made-up a noticeable

mass of the walled-city. Beyond the city walls from the same vantage point stretched

desolation. Towards the left, on the northern side, rose low hills which intervened

between the city and cantonments. On the south side of the city were the ruins of old

Delhi; the visually conspicuous tombs of Humayun and Safdar Jung being the more

prominent, and in the distance, the Qutab Minar.

A visitor to Delhi in 1845 commented, "The works of the Europeans at Delhi are

confined to a magnijicent canal, an arsenal. .,a church, a college and a printing press

(Gupta 1981, p. 16). " So although the British carried heavy political and military clout in

ShlhjahZnibZd their presence did not drastically alter the existing urban fabric. This - would change soon after the Rebellion. As mentioned in record books travelers kept on

their visits, the city had a twin line of defense, fortified both by the palace and the city

wall. Within, plots of land were allocated to noblemen, merchants and people of other

professions. Although some people did build on property outside a lh jahdnab ld on

estates gifted or sold to them by the king, there was no sense of a suburb. This would hold

true only until the nineteenth century (Gupta 1981, p. I). Architecturally, the town not

only carried aesthetic appeal, with its broad promenades and magnificent buildings, but

provided, for a limited population, security, competent tax collection, an ample supply of

water and a working sewer system. What was most important, which will be looked at in

depth in the concluding chapter, was how successive travelers were struck by the extent

of which the economic, social, and political life hinged on the monarch, his court and the

Palace-Complex.

In the decades between Bemier's visit and the British conquest in 1803,

Shlhjahandbdd suffered the ravages of civil war and invasion. The plan of the city more - or less stayed the same. This was not to say that there was no building activity. Even as

late as the 1780s, there were sixty bazaars in the city, far more than at the height of

Shlhjahln's time. Mosques, temples, houses, markets, streets, and gardens were all built - by various people at different times. However, during the tribulations of a power struggle

any such building activity would come to a halt, with merchants, artisans, and

intellectuals often withdrawing back to their home provinces. Over time, such power

struggles started yielding weaker rulers. Thus, as the Mughd power declined, the

responsibilities of the police chief, the kotwai, increased. From his office in Chandni

Chowk, he md his twelve officers, thanadars, policed the city. They collected taxes and

duties, regulated markets and industries, and kept records on the population and

immigrants through the use of mohallah news-sheets. With Delhi divided into twelve

wards, each charged with a thanadar, and subdivided into several mohallahs, security was

still accommodated on a private level (Ehlers 1993, p. 17). The Marathas left

Shlhjahanabad battered but not ravaged. Its urban, cultural, and social fabrics were still - intact when the British took control of the city in 1803. It was a city Bernier would have

still recognized. His impressions of a town made up of mud-thatched houses surrounding

palatial-abodes had, in the following half-century, changed very little. Bemier's

impressions were that Delhi was less a town than a collection of many villages. This view

of Delhi changed very little for European travelers and in his memoirs, a hundred and

fifty years later, Forbes wrote of the same impressions as did Bishop Heber in the 1820's.

One such record read, "...the houses within are many of them large and high. There are a

great number of mosques, with high minarets and gilded domes, and above all are seen a

palace, a very high and extensive cluster oj' gorhic towers and battlements, and the Jur~zna

Masjeed. the largest and handsomest place of Mtissulman worship in India (Heber 1828,

p. 285). "

When the British assumed control of aahjahandbsd in 1803 it had been a

customary practice, when settling in an existing Indian city, to create their own

community. This was usually built outside the local one and was done in the prevailing

ideologies of Imperialism ... the ordering of difference and strategic control (Metcalfe

1993). The military establishment would occupy cantonments while civilians would

reside in what were called civil lines. These were laid out in a grid-like formation with

low population densities, contrasting with the more organic urban forms and high

population densities of the local city. At Delhi, British troops were quartered outside the

city in cantonments on an elevated area called "the Ridge". Adjacent to these were the

spacious bungalows and compounds of the civil lines. Some British residents, however

chose to live within the city walls, preferring Daryaganj, a district south of the Palace, or

inside the Kashmiri Gate, just north of the Palace (Evenson 1989, p. 99).

A description of British "urban-presence" before the Rebellion was given in

Colonel Edward Vibart's description of GShjahSnZbZd at the time. In shoa. he narrated,

"...and in the year 1857 [with a] numbered. ..resident native population of about 160,000,

the majority being Mahomedans. There were also dwelling inside the city, some hundreds

of Eurasians and native Christians, in addition to a large European community. ..but the

number 4 omcia1 Europeans actually resident within the walls was inconsiderable [with

a few] attached to the Arsenal, usually called the "Magazine". 7Iie Arsenal, or

Magazine, replete with vast stores of ammunition and muskets, besides two complete

siege trains and innumerable field guns, was also situated within the limits of the city

walls, lining the river front close to rhe Culcrrtta Gate, brct was not provided with a single

European soldier to defend it. Close at hand were the spaciocts grounds of the

Government College ... the Civil Treasury ... the Delhi Gazette Press (and] St. James'

Church, fronting a large open space adjoining the Cashmere Gate and Main Guard. [It]

now becomes needful ... to give a brief description of the military cantonments and their

relative position to the civ of Delhi. These were situated about two miles to its north

west, and extended for about the same distance along the base of an elevated ridge of

rocks , which latter, running obliquely to the city walls. formed the soclth eastern

boundary in that direction. There were several roods which led from rliyerent parts of the

cantonment towards the city of Delhi, the two principal of which, passing over the crest

of the ridge, united at a point some eight hrtndred yards below it, and thence proceeded

in almost a straight line to the city, which it entered by way of the Cashmere Gate. On the

river side of this road, and standing on the banks, was Metcalfe House, the residence of

Sir T. Metcalfe, Bart., at that time joint magistrate of Delhi. Farther on, on the same side

of the road, right Relations up ro the civ walls, lay a number of srtburban gardens

[while] on the other side of the road, were a number of houses standing on their own

grounds, inhabited for the most part by civilians and other non-military residents, the

chief amongst them being the Ludlow Castle ..., the residence of Mr. Fraser, the

cornmissioner of Delhi. Not far from Ludlow castle and nearer to the cantonment, was the

electric telegraph office, and just beyond the latter. ..were the assembly rooms and the

shop of Mr. Marshal the principal European merchant at DeLhi (Vibrat 1898, p. 31."

Colonel Vibrat's narrative provided necessary documentation of the British presence in

Shdhjahanabdd. This provides a basis for comparing the changes to come. -

Relations between the English and the indigenous populations worsened with the

Rebellion of 1857. Attitudes were not changed but were sharply honed to direct

Imperialism to illustrate and justify the "presumed need for a new policy of governance

(Hutchins 1967, p. 79)." British insecurities of being a minority amongst a Native

populous heightened their ''vengeful response" to the Rebellion. Contrarieties between

"Europeans" and "Natives" had always existed, stemming from biological and domestic

ideologies of nineteenth-century England (Kabbani 1986). The Victorian man was able,

active and intellectual; the woman delicate, quiescent and emotional. Men controlled the

public realm, pursuing wealth and power, while women ministered their homes, and

children (Metcalfe 1997, p. 93). These gender distinctions were extended to the Raj with

the Indian population "efferninated" by the patriarchal Victorian society. India was now

controlled by the British under a "consistent set of assumptions". The Rebellion proved to

the British that the Indian male was not "properly ordering his home" just as they had not

provided the "proper governance" for their society. Imperialism, thus, would make a

much harsher presence within S&hjahSnSbld's urbanity.

In the beginning of the nineteenth century, much of the city's administration was

in the hands of the British. Although this severely reduced the power of the Mughd

Emperor, he continued to hold court and attend to the petitions of his subjects in the

Audience Hall. He was still the source of favors md lead the faithful at prayers. Over the

course of time, leading to the Rebellion, there were numerous disagreements with the

administrators of the Raj. "The was the complicated dispute over the succession. There

was the question of the opening of the gate that led from Selimgarh Fort, opposed by the

British and demanded by the King as it wodd give him easier access to the Jltmna on the

east of the Palace (Llewellyn 1977, p. 34)." The court showed great foresight in striving

to keep the gate from the Selimgarh Fort open. Not only does this show limited political

will but a knowledge of how important the role of the Palace-Complex would be in

securing the city in case of a "revolt against the British". Colonel Keith Young, in

command of a regiment before Delhi recorded on June 24, 1857. "On the part of the

insurgents, the reinforcements were continuous; some arriving in brigades, some in

single regiments, some in detachments: and it was not possible for the English

commander to prevent their ingress into the city, since his force as insuficient to invest

even a third of the land side to it; and access to the left bank of the Jumna was settle at

all times perfectly secure by the bridge of boats, which was under close fire of the glins in

Selimgurh, and at least 2,500 yards distant from our nearest battery. It was therefore

impossible to prevent a constant stream of reinforcements and supplies from pouring into

Delhi, which, by the middle of August, contained within and rcnder its walls a force of

more than 30,000 men (Ball, p. 474)."

European troops in 1828 were moved out of the city to the cantonment on the

"Ridge", and only native Indian soldiers were left within the city walls. In 185 L the main

Arsenal in Delhi was shifted from the city to the banks of the river, responding to local

petitions and Napier, who feared of an accidental explosion. A small magazine, however,

was retained between the Kashmiri Gate and the Palace and was, "replete with vast stores

of ammr{nition and muskets, [along with] hvo complete siege trains and innrimerable

field grins, but was not provided with a single European soldier to defend it (Vibrat 1898,

p. 6). "

Security and control became an overriding prerogative with the officials of the Raj

after 1857. This had direct repercussions on the morphology of the city. The Palace-

Complex, named the Red Fort after the Rebellion, was scourged of its inhabitants.

Bahadur Shah, after a lengthy and biased trial, was exiled to Buma with his many

dependents turned out of the Palace-Complex. These people turned to the rnohallahs and

back alleys of the city to seek refuge. Mohallahs historically provided a relatively safe

haven in a city where violent changes in power were pervasive. This held especially true

for the areas around the Palace-Complex. It was around this that provisions were "made

for the gardens, palaces and mosques of the Royal family. These were used to embellish

the main axes of the city. Behind these, sites were allocated to other important members

of the court for their mansions. Their precise location and design, however, was not part

of the grand aesthetic scheme. Around these mansions, in turn, were built the clay and

thatch huts of the rest of the population, most of whom depended on the nobles for their

patronage. This arrangement funned the basis for a system of ntohallahs (Noe 1981, p.

14). " The British realized the security risk mohallahs posed and demolished many of the

gates which would have sealed mohallahs off in sign of trouble. The army moved into the

Fort, tore down many of the palaces and constructed military barracks. "Many houses,

shops, public buildings and the beautiful Akbarabadi Mosque were destroyed in the

process. and the organic link between the palace and the city was broken (Ehlers 1993, p.

39). " This was strategically important as the Palace-Complex had proved to be a decisive

planning hub for the city's population. Since the British takeover a council of ten

members had supervised the "daily running of the city" (Llewellyn 1977, p. 93) and

sorted the defenses of the walls and the Palace-Complex. They also attempted to raise

money to support the ranks of Mughal empathizen. Bahdur Shah presided over the daily

conferences at the Diwan-i-Khas, mediating, "between the quarreling princes and tried

to persuade the rich to contribute in money or kind towards the cost of his anny

(Llewellyn 1977, p. 93)." Consequently, "post-Rebellion" Delhi was made to forget it

was a Mughal city, robbing it of its core, the Palace-Complex, calling it a "Fort".

ShZhjahlnabad was then made a "constituent" of the Punjab, of which Lahore was the - capital. "Less than twenty years afrer the Rising of 1857, Delhi was a changed city;

entered from the railway-station rather than by boat from the northern Kushmiri Gate,

the Italiante arches of the railway station and the wide avenue of Queens Road made it

difficult to visualize the crowded rnohallnhs that they had displaced (Ehlers 1993, p.

40). "

Control of rnohallahs, especially around the Palace-Complex, were decisive in the

subjugation of BbhjahandbSd. They were tightly knit communities providing pockets of

rebellion. The capture of Delhi drew this comment from Colonel Mackenzie, "...the great

city, with its intricate network of narrow lanes crookedly piercing through masses of lofty

brick-built houses. .. was yet unconquered and defiant (Llewellyn 1977, p. 145). "

Ironically these very mohallahs provided the means for a very effective British assault.

When the attacking force breached the Kashrniri Gate and proceeded past the Moree

bastions and the Kabul Gate they switched strategies from one of "head-on assault" to one

of "secure and destroy". This proved ideal for swarming the mohailahs and effectively

neutralizing the city. The Palace-Complex, along with the Iumrna Mosque and Selimgarh,

the other bastions of native control, could not hold-up without the support of these

surrounding rnohallahs. Colonel Edward Vibart recorded the modus operandi. "The

engineers wouldfirst break through the wall of a house, which we at once proceeded to

occupy, and then carrying sand-bags to the top of the roof would construct a parapet, ,

from behind which a covering fire was kept up on the next home to be taken (Vibnrt

1898, p. 143). "

When British forces re-took Delhi Ghalib wrote, " Wzen the angry lions entered

the town, they killed the helpless ... and burned houses ... Hordes of "men and women,

commoners and noblemen, poured out of Delhi from the three gates and took shelter in

small communities and tombs olitside the city (Ghalib 1970, p. ./O). " The inhabitants of

the city were turned out, giving the British denizens time and freedom to chastise the city.

Mobs would be disruptive in such a process. This fear most likely lead Lieutenant

Hodson to shoot the Emperor's sons, at Chandni Chowk, on axis with the Palace-

Complex. Captured, hiding at Humayun's romb south of Delhi with the rest of their

family, they were ceremoniously pulled into Delhi from the Lahore Gate. This was the

first symbolic act-of-power as, logistically, both the Delhi and Turkman Gates were

closer to the ancestral tomb of Humayun. With the inhabitants turned out, Harriet Tytler

wrote, "The first thing which struck me so forcibly on entering the great city of Delhi,

only a few months ago before so crowded, was that Drlhi was appalling. All you could

see was empry houses where the household hearths had ceased to burn , and not a living

the creature, except now and then a starved cat, would show itselj and empty cages were

ro be seen here and there with their once-beloved occtipants laid dead below (Tytler

1986, p. 164)." Every week hundreds of people were routed out of aghjahzndbdd.

General Bum had said "Delhi is nearly cleared of its inhabitants ... I shall let no one back

with out a pawana setting forth who he is. ..All men allowed to return I shall register in

the Kotwali (Guptal981, p. 23). " Within three months select people were being allowed

back into the city. Amongst the few were Hindu artisans and Muslims whose services

were needed by the Public Works Department. General Bum slowly allowed some men.

women, and children to return to the mohallahs ... admitting more Hindus than Muslims.

Generally, the extent of one bania (trader), one punsaria (shopkeeper) and halrvai

(sweetmeat seller) were kept per street (Gupta 198 1). By January 1858, consent was given

to the Hindus to return to Delhi while the Punjab government resolved that property of

Muslims and of guilty Hindus would be confiscated. The rest of the population were

allowed to re-occupy their houses. Only the Calcutta, Kashmir and Lahore Gates were

open and upon payment of a rupee and two annas at the Kotwali, a charpoy (bed) and two

stones for milling of grain were issued (Llewellyn 1977, p. 155). A general pardon was

released in November 1858, but it was not till January 1859 that Muslims were re-

admitted to the city. Even so, their houses remained sequestered and many prominent

Muslims were still kept under house arrest.

This confiscation of property resulted in drastic urban changes in and around the

Palace-Complex. The immediate consideration of "what would be done with

Shlhjahlni3b&i" centered around whether the city would be destroyed or kept. After - much deliberation it was agreed that there was more to be gained in occupying the city

than in destroying it. Occupation, however, had already begun. The m y procured many

buildings within the city, amidst others, the palace of Ahmad Ali Khan, Khan

Mohammad's house, the Jurnrna Mosque, the Ghaziuddin Madrasit (weekly musha'aras

had been held here), the Idgah, and most importantly the Palace-Complex itself. Between

1858 and 1859 eighty-six houses and /or shops were sold as compensation to those whose

property was demolished for railway construction or military purposes. Altruistic

compensation aside, this was more a means of punishing the conspirators. The former

owners of these were Bahadur Shah, Zeenat Mahal, Azizabadi Begum, Kutbi Begum,

Moti Begum, Adina Begum, the Nawab Wazir, Nawab Ziauddin, the Rajah of Ballabgarh

and the Nawab of Jhajjar. The location of these plots are as follows (Gupta 198 1, p. 3 1-

Plots belonging to Bahadur Shah and his wives were in: Kashmiri Gate, Fatehpuri Bazaar, Bhojla Pahari, Ajmeri Bazaar* Faiz Bazaar, Dariba, Chandni Chowk [37 plots in all]. Plots belonging to Nawab Wazir were in: Lahori Gate, Turkman Gate, Hauz Qazi. Faiz Bazaar, Chandni Chowk, Bhojla Pahari (35 lots in all]. Plots belonging to the rulers of Ballabgarh and Jhajjar were in: Daryaganj and Frriz Bazaar

[As the scope of this thesis is the Palace-Complex and purlieus, with its urban extensions,

the Jama Mosque and Chandni Chowk the districts examined in the concluding chapter

will fall within these parameters. Therefore, of the eleven districts mentioned, only four

fd1 within the scope of this thesis, these are: Faiz Bazaar, Dariba, Chandni Chowk, and

Dqaganj -1

The post-1857 military and civilian positions were now reversed from what they

had been. It was decided to station the European troops within Daryaganj and the Palace-

Complex and some outside the city-wall in Hindu Rao's house. "The Palace and [he

Jumma Masjeed were occupied as quarters by the Pmjab and Ghoorka regiments with a

few English troops; the rest were quartered in various parts of tl2e city. The houses of Mr.

Skinner and Mr. Beresford. ... were taken by the principal ofleers as quarters (Minturn

1858, p.277). " A main military concern was where to position the "new" cantonment. An

area between the Palace and the Kashmiri Gate was thought desirable and was held on to

by the army until 1873. The actual area decided upon was the Palace-Complex. For

security reasons, a four-hundred and fifty yard arc from the Fort was cleared. Most major

mosques were confiscated and used for secular purposes or guarded with sentries. "The

mosque was, however, rued as a storehouse for years ... the great bronze central gate is

never ailowed to be opened. except by permission (Princep 1879, p. 22)." Within the

Fort, courts, gardens and pavilions were earmarked and detonated for mess halls, canteens

and barracks. The Lahore and Delhi gates of the Fort were even re-named, respectively

titled, the Victoria and Alexandra, with an entrance fee charged at the gate.

British changes to the Palace-Complex and the surrounding property carried with

it a particular strategy and consequence. The Mughd Residence was not just a palatial

abode but intrinsically linked to the urbanity of a lh j ah ln lbdd . Consequently,

occupation of the Palace-Complex resulted in immediate changes, not only in the

physical make-up of the city but in how it was administered. These changes are looked at

in the following chapter.

PLATE 20

The Jumma Mosque (Viban 1898).

PLATE 2 1

View o f the Jumma Mosque (Gupta 198 1 ).

PLATE 22

PLATE 23

The facade af a house on Chandni Chowk (Gupca 198 I ).

PLATE 24

The courtyard of a house in Shahjahmabtld (Gupta I98 1 ).

PLATE 25

The elevated gateway of the Iumma Mosque (Begley 1990).

PLATE 26

The British Camp during the Seige (Viban 1889).

PLATE 27

Map of Dclhi showing the British encampment in 1857 during the Se ip (Tytfcr 1986).

CHAPTER V RATIONALIZING THE ALTERATIONS

This chapter observes the physical repercussions the British changes to the Palace-

Complex had on the city. Previous chapters have set out the framework for the drawn

observations here. Questions and components from the "rationale" and "literature review"

floored in Chapter One will govern the line of inquiry. The control of Palace-Complex

was pivotal in the siege of Delhi. Not only would it provide a symbolic transfer of power

but, strategically, would allow control of the entire city.

Physically and economically, azhjahanabad utterly depended on the Palace-

Complex. A symbiotic relationship, the Palace-Complex could be viewed as a separate

city with the remaining-half, umbilically attached, prospering through the protection and

resources that filtered through. Mughal economics of the time support this

presupposition. The Mughals were entirely town centered, their incomes dependent on the

arrogation of a substantial percentage from the agricultural surplus. These were taken

from landowners, the jagirdars, who in turn claimed a large portion of the peasant's

surplus in the form of land revenue. These jagirdars, themselves, would live in the city,

with their own household and military retinue. How the Mughal mling elite spent their

share of the agricultural surplus affected the entire economy and thus the city's

development. Of this, "a substantial part of the income of the emperor and nobles was

spent on craft goods. This would imply that a large section of the urban population

(though small in proportion to the rural population) was engaged in productive labor, so

that the surp1it.r obtained from the country was largely in the form of raw material for

manufacttires, with a rnmh smaller part (in terns of total value) consrimed as food and

fodder (Moosvi 1987, p. 272)." In such hierarchies the urban population was very

dependent on the mling elite for a stable economy. This was upheld by the fact that forty-

percent of the mling Mughal class' income, and one-tenth that of the jagirdar's income

was set aside for urban craft production. In addition, seventeen-percent of the ruling class

income went directly to maintain unproductive labor (Moosvi 1987, p. 301,307).

These economic dependencies have physical attributes when it comes to the

planning of cities. It made sense here that the main strategy when planning

Shzhjahlnlbad would be to build the Palace-Complex. a main thoroughfare. and a royal - mosque. It was a town that subsisted directly on the expenditure of the ruling class,

dependent on the supplies from neighboring villages. Craft products were manufactured

locally and also attained from distant markets. aZhjahlnSbZid, consequently, evolved as

a city of disparities. On a macro-level, this relationship was seen between the Palace-

Complex and the rest of the city; or on a micro-level, between the nobility and the

segment of population involved in productive labor. These disparities were noted by

Bernier in his accounts, he wrote, "Amid these streets are dispersed the habitations of the

Mansebdars, or petty Omrahs, oflcers of justice, rich merchants, and others; many of

which have a tolerable appearance. Very few are built entirely of brick or stone, and

several are made only of clay and straw, yet they are airy and pleasant, most of them

having colt rts and gardens, being comrnodioris inside and containing good fitmittire. The

thatched roof is supported by a layer 4 i o n g handsome, and strong canes, and the clay

wails are covered with a fine white lime. Intermixed with these different houses is an

immense number of mailer ones, built of mud and thatched with straw, in which lodge

the common troopers, and aN that vast multitude of servants and camp-followers who

follow the court and the army (Bernier 1891, p. 2461." Urbanization thus, in

ShlhjahBnBbld, immediately corresponded with the physical presence and concentration - of the ruling nobility in conjunction with their dependents. This was what made the city.

As described in most texts by travelers, the Palace-Complex carried with it an

imposing architectural presence. It provided not only the royal living quarters but the seat

of government from where the city and Mughal empire was ruled. Control of the Palace-

Complex categorically implied control of the city. That was why British occupation

played an important role in ordering BahjahSnZbZd. Although the outcome of 1857

sealed Delhi's fate, the city's deterioration had begun decades earlier with the decline of

the Mughal Empire and the procurement of Delhi by the British in 1803. As mentioned

earlier the Palace-Complex was not just a symbolic seat of power but economical~y

sustained the rest of the city. The royal funds kept it a clean and hygienic city. "T\le gout,

the stone, the complaints in the kidneys, catarrhs and q~iartan agues are nearly unknown;

and persons who arrive in the country aflicted with any of these disorders, as was the

case with me, soon experience a complete cure ... there is great enjoymetzt of Izenlth

(Bernier 1891, p. 254)." It is when the British put Bahadur Shah on a meager pension

plan when squalor and disease started becoming noticeable. When the Government

wanted to build a health dispensary the local population was approached to make the

donations. "As against nearly Rs 10,000 from local siibscriptions. the Government grant

amounted to only Rs 2,500 (Gupta 1981, p. 20). " Previous senses of urban hierarchy,

centered around the Palace-Complex, were now upset.

After holding the morning durbar at the Diwan-i-Am (conducting public affairs)

the Emperor would retire to the Diwan-i-khas to hold confidential discussions (Mathur

1964, p. 16). Held with select officials, vital business was discussed. Chandni Chowk was

the public extension of this system. Beginning in the Diwan-i-Am it stretched right into

the midst of the city. Here transactions were conducted on behalf of the Mughal Court.

"The street has a long divan, or raised way, on both sides, in the manner of the Pontneuf;

five or six feet high and four broad. Bordering the divan are closed arcades, which rrin

up the whole way in the form of gates. It is upon this long divan that all the collectors of

the market-dues and other petty officers exercise their jimctions without being

incommoded by the horses or people that pass in the street below (Bernier 1891. p.

257). " BShjahSnZbbd thrived on this complementarity with the Palace-Complex. When

the traveler Mintum wrote, "the royal family received regularly an allowance of

$750,000 per annum, on which the Emperor was enabled to keep up considerable state,

and held regular courts in the long abandoned Dewan Khax..The royal family were

protected in the enjoyment of their throne, honors, and revenues (Mintum 1858, p. 241)",

he could not be further from the truth. The very "d~owance" Mintbum thinks could

maintain a state would not support even the city. Forty percent of $750,000 spread over

twelve months amounts to naught as with the responsibility of the jagirdars to set aside

one-tenth of their earnings for the city. With the British administrative takeover, jagirdars

carried no such responsibility. Even with such severely reduced powers, the Palace-

Complex still attracted insurgent forces as a symbolic and strategic rallying point. Control

of the Complex meant, of course, the control of Delhi. The rebels from Meerut went

directly, "...to the river gate of the Emperor's palace, calling o ~ t Jrom below who they

were and what their mission was. The royal family immediately gave them permission to

enter, which of course they did. [Anybody who has ever been to Delhi and seen the palace

walls from the side of the river will have noticed the gate, ~vlzich leads by ujlight of steps

to the beautiful apartments of the Emperor] (Tytfer 1986, p. 118)." It was here the

rebellion was planned and carried out.

After re-taking Delhi the British realized the strategic mistake in allowing limited-

functionality of the Palace-Complex. Immediate solutions were military occupation and

turning it into a "British Fort", and symbolically banishing all Mughal links by trying

Bahadur Shah for inciting a Rebellion. "The Dewan Khas is again occupied. The last

monarch of Shah Jehan 's line is again present in the throne-room of his empire. He is n

mean looking man, plainly dressed, crouched upon a native bedstead, and smoking a

hookah. Before him, at a table , sit a row of officers in English uniform. They are judging

him for treason to the Power to whose protection and generosity alone he owed his

position and ability to do mischief (Mintlcrn 1858, p. 242). " Such symbolic acts of power

took place with great regularity, a British attempt at forming a governance far different

from that which had been exercised before. A formal system would now sustain the

conformity of colonial rule and all traces of past allegiances were to be accounted. "Three

of the Princes ... these scions of royalty were brought to the ciiy in a common bullock-cart,

and thrown into an open sewer near the Kotwalee ...[ where] a gallows was erected. ..They

lay open and exposed for any one that liked to see and take a lesson (Mintum 1858, p.

277,279). "

Even with the military occupation of the Place-Complex, the desecration of the

Iumma Mosque, demolition/confiscation of property and the eventual construction of a

railway line that halved the city of Delhi, people chose to return and re-build their city.

This rebuilding was instigated by the British in an operation, between 1858 and 1862,

which involved changing the ownership of urban property. Essentially, it gave property

belonging to suspect individuals to people who had liquid cash. Canning also proposed

that "confiscated houses" be given-out as remuneration to the individuals whose houses

were to be demolished as part of the Fort and railway clearances. In such a way, property

surrounding the fort, but outside the four-hundred and fifty yard radius, would be secured

by people who would be loyal to the British Crown. By stoking such land speculation the

British government would also not have to pay out monetary compensation. Such

property was given a ticket value and could be exchanged for another property of the

same ticket value. Bankers and merchants who had laid low during the Rebellion took

advantage of these low real-estate prices and hoarded all such tickets. When prices went

up, "[tlhese ticket holders ... had [already] become millionaires, by large scale pitrchnses

at a time when the price of land in Delhi had reached an all-time low ...( Gupta 198 1, p.

30). "

Due to real-estate acquiring a market value, unheard of during Mughal times,

social status no longer corresponded with income levels. As such social responsibility

was not maintained as it had been done in the past and depended on the public charity of

the city's nouveaux-rich (Gupta 1981, p. 72). The Palace-Complex, meanwhile, was

continually being used by the British. Parts were destroyed and parts were built upon.

When returning to Delhi after its capture, Harriet Tytler took up residence in the Palace-

Complex in "Kamuran Shah's palace". The Diwan-i-Am , which originally formed part

of a large square, was demolished, with only the diwan left. The "lflort itself became a

European ghetto, in contrast to the settlement in the Civil Lines. A painting of 1868

shows English children gambolling self-consciously, w with governesses in tow, against the

incongruous background of the Red Fort buildings (Giiptn 1981, p. 57). " Indians, after

paying an entrance fee, were allowed to attend the Gon Bazaar (literally translates to

White Bazaar), an anglicized Meena Bazaar. Re-urbanization of neighboring property,

such as Faiz Bazaar and Dariba, were direct consequences of the Palace's occupation as

was the stationing of troops in Daryagmj. All this provided the necessary buffer for

disrupting the organic link between Palace and city.

Any power the Palace-Complex might have carried prior to the Rebellion was

now stamped out. Nobles of the Mughal court were also stripped of power and

accordingly their responsibility to the mohallahs. In such a way the kotwali and mohallah

systems were effectively stifled. Prior to the Rebellion the British had allowed the kotwali

to function but in conjunction with a Magistrate and Commissioner. This "troika" proved

more detrimental than helpful. and the kotwali was formally abolished, replaced by a

Municipality. Instituted in 1863,. Viceroy, Lord Lawrence said, "Mwzicipalities slrali

raise (in any manner they decide) funds for the police and for conservancy a d sric/z

other ficnds as the members may ihink fir to expend on the works of improvement.

education and other local objects; and the cost of the M~inicipal Police shall be a first

charge on all ncchfilnds (Gupta 1981, p. 70). " Mohdlahs which had made British troop

movement extremely hazardous during the Seige were also struck a blow. Gates which

capped most mohallahs were tom down to make passage for policemen and soldiers

easier and chowkidars, neighborhood watch-keepers. were replaced by the new municipal

police. Mohallahs were a reflection of the type of relationship the Palace-Complex had

with the rest of the city. Movement from one mohallah to the next marked the progression

of distinct urban hierarchies. One moved towards the Palace-Complex or away from it,

from a public sphere to a private sphere. Such spatial ordering was based on a

hierarchical organization which allowed a heterogeneous population to live together

within a series of public, semi-private and private spaces. Chandni Chowk was a prime

example. As the main thoroughfare, it was a direct extension of the Palace-Complex.

Secondary roads and bazaars, branching out from Chandni Chowk, ended in the

homogenous units called mohallahs. These rnohallahs were inoperable as independent

"fiefdoms" and needed hierarchical urbanization. This had been provided by the Palace-

Complex and its extensions, Chandni Chowk and the Iumma Mosque ... of which all three

were struck from the hierarchy. Even secondary extensions such as Faiz Bazaar running

north-south from the city's Delhi Gate were immobilized with the destruction of the

Akbarabadi Mosque and the use of Zinat-ul-Masjid as a bakery. Within this hierarchy,

mosques became prime British targets as they too represented extensions of the Palace-

Complex. They had always played important roles in maintaining political, economic and

religious affiliations (Ehlers 1993, p. 47). Mosques, which provided mohallahs a point of

reference, were occupied primarily to reduce native subjects to a manageable order.

AMOUNT LEFT WITH PEASANTS 3,903,257,230

RURAL EXPENDITURE of landowners 156,433,1376

RURAL EXPENDITURE from revenue payments 1.0 I8,368,809

RURAL EXPENDITURE by sub-assignees 448.0 1 8,117

TOTAL 79,339,755,32

This table shows the total amount of revenue left in the rum1 sector. The amounts are in dams which were a form of Mughal currency. Forty dams went to a silver rupee. One silver rupee fetched a muhr. which was the equivalent to 169 grains of gold. The amount that went into the Mughal treasury in the fiscal year 1595-6 was estimated at 220501600 dams or 103.5 13.25 1 grains of gold (Moosvi 1987, p. 199, 303).

AMOUNT SPENT ON WAGES out of the income of the Mughals 1,424,470,656

URBAN WAGES out of the wages of the landowners and rural potentates 75,906,40 I URBAN Iabor-share from expenditure by subassignees 18,162,897

URBAN labor-share from expenditure of income of revenue staff 84,864.067

TOTAL 1,603,404,021

This table shows amounts paid out in urban wages, Amounts are in dams. The two totals yidd a ratio showing the difference between urban and rural populations (17: 100). Shahjahanabad was dependent on this rural population but did not accommodate them within the city walls. This changed after the 1867 Rebellion (Moosvi 1987, p. 303).

Shdhjahanabdd changed from primarily a residential city, ordered by the Palace- - Complex to a commercial city ordered by commercialism. All texts cited in the thesis

located the Mughal Residence as the main ordering element. Once the Palace-Complex

was occupied by the British, logistically, a railway-line cutting through the heart of the

city made sense. This east-west arrangement of the railroad destroyed the original,

concentric layout of the city. With the railroad came congestion. This unconfined

commercialism gave rise to severe overcrowding, slums, and health problems. A city

which previously traded only to sustain a symbiotic relationship between the general

population and the resident nobility was now becoming a hub of British India's economy.

Crime went up as a consequence. In the 1860s the Delhi Municipality spent seventy-five

percent of its income on the police. The remaining twenty-five percent was thinly

distributed. An infrastructure which had been supported by the Mughals was now left in

disrepair. Thoroughfares, for instance, which had been brightly lit by kerosene lamps

before the Revolt, were now lit by dim oil lamps. The cosmopolitanism that had existed

in Shdhjahdndbdd prior to the Rebellion splintered with occupation of the Palace-

Complex. A city wholly consistent with traditional Persian planning principles was

conceptually problematic with no foci. If only the problem was conceptual. The poet

Ghalib summed it up in saying, "We had only one thing lep; the wish to reconstntct the

city; everything else was plundered (Ghalib 1970, p. 228). "

PLATE 28

Bahadur Shah (Tytler 1986).

PLATE 29

Humayun's Tomb where Bahadur Shah was captured, hiding with his family, from the British (Vibart 1989).

PLATE 30

Bahodur Shah in exile, Buna . 18% (Worswick 1976).

PLATE 3 1

Gholib, the "patron" poct of Delhi (Gupta 198 I ) .

PLATE 32

Charles Ball's painting of thc British attacking a rcbcl cavalry (Tytlcr 1986).

PLATE 33

Photograph of the Kashmir Gate blown up during the British assault of thc city on September 14, 1857 (Tytlcr 1986).

PLATE 34

A puhlic hanging of Sepoys lWorswick 1976).

PLATE 35

A courtyard in the Palace-Complex and the Lahore Gate being used by the British to store artillery (Tytler 1986).

PLATE 36

A plan of the PaIace-Complex. The black dot marks the Mcena bazmr which was turncd into thc Gori Bazaar by the British (Saha 1995)-

PLATE 37

Mop showing main districts of S hahjahanabad 1Ehlcrs 1 993).

CHAPTER VI PHYSICAL AND SYMBOLIC PRESENCE

Previous chapters looked at aahjahznabid using the text of travelers as a means

of unlocking foregone descriptions of the city. These writings present the reader with

images, and when looked at jointly, observations can be ascertained on the nature of the

changes that took place after the Rebellion. Observations as such, can not be summed-up

into a conclusion, but rather prop different stages for future research. Questions tabled in

Chapter One augment these observations without the finality of a conclusion. Urbanity is,

afterall, a complex and multifaceted set of human qualities which can not be reduced to

any one solitary and static conclusion.

This chapter brings around the thesis, one full circle, to those very concepts that

are crucial to understanding the urban changes which took place in Delhi. The

descriptions given by travelenlwriters concur about the physicd presence the Palace-

Complex canied within the city. This, however, need not be corroborated by historical

accounts. Any map of the city will show the Place-Complex taking up a third of the

walled area. This speaks of a physical presence. The same can be said of the two major

Palace-Complex extensions, the Jumrna Mosque and Chandni Chowk. The Iumma

Mosque was the Mughal religious bastion. Larger than any other mosque it was

positioned within the heart of the city. Elevated from its surroundings on a plinth with

three massive staircases, the Jurnma Mosque created its own presence. This was achieved

by not placing the mosque on a direct axis with the heavier mass of the Palace-Complex

but placing it off-axis with four major roads diverging from its boundaries. Of these, only

one curved up to the Delhi Gate, programmatically maintaining Chandni Chowk as the

sole royal axis to the Palace-Complex. There was no other route of its type located in the

city. Such planning strategies, symbolically and fundamentally, kept Chandni Chowk a

ceremonial route for the Mughals and only after performing this function did it provide

for the economic banter of the city. Further extrapolations from the S&ihjahSnZbld map

yield three basic characteristics evident in most Mughal: " [ I ] Very specific city-

hinterland relationships of a rent-capitalist nature, [2] Spatial socio-economic and

political impacts of institutions, and [3] A historically developed and persisting central

place system of dominance (Ehlers 1993, p. 10). " The map, then, becomes an invaluable

tool, allowing immediate access to the city. Urban schemes have to bear the weight of

physical realizations. This, aside from the examined text, helps articulate whether British

changes to the Palace-Complex were strategic or symbolic in nature.

What determined if British changes were strategic or symbolic? S&hjahandbdd

itself was a city that coupled the nuances of a functioning-city with the pomp and

circumstance of a Mughal capital. The functioning-city half accommodated a local

commerce, neighborhood typologies, a policing system, public institutions, green spaces,

and areas for religious worship. These were physical elements of the city and, as noted in

an earlier chapter, had grown, over the years from the urban components of the Mughal

court. Urnbilically attached, these two halves functioned in unison and although the two

realms appear very different there are instances when the two cross. The result of this

overlap was a grandiose architecture, impressing upon the local inhabitants, the power of

the ruling elite. For instance, royal processions were carried through Chandni Chowk,

public hearings were held at the Diwan-i-Am, or the Emperor would often lead the Friday

prayers at the Jumma Mosque. These were ceremonial areas where the enactment of

power was held, much like a durbar. The durbar in Mughal India was a custom of courtly

rituals used to reaffirm and renew vital client-patron relationships. The initial query of

what determined British alterations as being strategic or symbolic, then depended on the

area in question. Consequently, changes to a mohallah drastically differed to those

changes at Chandni Chowk. Mohallahs contained streets which were "short, narrow, and

irregular, andfill of windings and corners (Bernier 189I, p. 285). " These roads always

ended with a cul-de-sac and were gated, giving the community a sense of security at a

neighborhood level. With their community intact, the mohallah, then, could fight a

limited resistance to any security breach made to the city walls. Thus, controlling

mohallahs entailed violating this sense of security and community; a strategic option

taken by the British. They tore down the gates, got rid of the chowkidari system, and

occupied many identity giving institutions, such as mosques, which were quintessential in

locating these mohallahs. These were physical changes which had direct consequences

and were different from the symbolic alterations in areas such as Chandni Chowk, the

Jumma Mosque, or within the public realms of the Palace-Complex.

Symbolic changes made to the Palace-Complex and its extensions did not

necessarily entail physical alterations. The Mughds themselves had designed many of

these urban structures with a sense of ritual and ceremony. Such was the case with

Chandni Chowk. Here was a street that extended from the Diwan-i-Am into the city, a

major thorough-fare for commerce and where the kotwdi was situated. When entering the

city the Emperor ceremoniously marched up Chandni Chowk to the Palace-Complex.

This was not only a public affirmation that the king reigned supreme, but was symbolic to

the inhabitants that were secure from any external threat as long as the king was alive.

Rituals were carried out within the Palace-Complex as well. During a durbar in the

Diwan-i-Am there were three railings: a golden railing provided distance between the

emperor and the princes whilst the nobles stood further away between a silver and a

wooden railing. Nine horses were, positioned behind the wooden railing behind which

were four elephants and several soldiers (Manucci 1989. p.89). As such, durbars

maintained very well established rules for the relative placement of people and objects

( N e w 1992, p. 86). This fixed spatial order of the durbar represented one's status to the

ruler, closer to the person of the ruler the higher one's status. Normally, the Emperor sat

elevated from all around him and upon entering the durbar, an individual would prostate

himself whilst saluting or touching their head in various manners. Symbolically, the

saluter had placed his head, the sentient perch of an individual, into the hand of

submissiveness, presenting it to the Mughal Emperor as a gift (Cohn 1983). For the

Mughals, "these ritual presentations constituted a relationship between the giver and the

receiver, and were not understood as simply as an exchange of goods and valuables. The

khelat was a symbol ofthe idea of continuity or succession ... and that continuity rests on a

physical basis, depending on contact of the body of the recipient with the body of the

donor. This incorporation rests on the idea that the king stands for a system of rule of

which he is the incarnation ... incorporating into his body ... the persons of those who share

his rule. Those thus incorporated were not just servants ofthe king, but part of him, just

as the eye is the main function of sight, and the ear in the realm of hearing (Nezar 1992,

p. 86)." British awareness of these symbolic covenants was why Bahadur Shah and his

family were marched through the Lahore Gate upon their capture at Humayun's tomb.

Logistically it made sense to bring them through the Delhi Gate but symbolically the

Lahore Gate had far deeper political implications. Controlling this strip was unlike tearing

down gates, as in the mohdlahs surrounding the Palace-Complex, but was an act of

implanting themselves within a foreign city as the dominant culture. Strategy aside, this

was a move constructed on symbolism.

The British who had previously resided upon the Ridge decided, after 1857, to

take charge of "symbol making". Prior to the Rebellion. strategy dictated that the British

kept their distance from the native culture. The Ridge granted the necessary vantage to

wage battle and maintain the Cantonment's safety and distance. This was why an existing

Magazine was moved from the city out to the Ridge. A small division, however, which

was retained proved fatal for the British. When the rebels overtook the city the remaining

Magazine was an obvious target to secure. Without any backup the British blew

themselves up rather than letting the gun-powder fail into rebel hands. Tytler wrote at the

time, "It appears young Willonghby, a young gunner of the artiIIery who had just joined

us at Delhi, saw the necessity of not letting our small arms and powder fall into the hands

of the mutineers, so he decided to blow up the magazine (Tytler 1986, p. 127)." The

transfer of the Cantonment to the Palace-Complex heralded a change in attitudes. Control,

like of the ill-fated Magazine, could not be held as long as the British viewed themselves

as outsiders. They now assigned ranks and positions, a strict regiment of subordination,

for the locals to follow. The British erased all ritual/ceremonid ties to the architectural

fabric that the locals might have construed with the Mughals. All connections to the

Palace-Complex were severed. Expectations that the people be bound to them, as in the

past with the Mughal Emperors, were categorically implicit. Power was now being

"situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the [urge scale

phenomena of [the] population (Bernauer 1990, p. 176)."

There was no doubting the symbolic overtures when Bahadur Shah was paraded

down Chandni Chowk and tried in his own Palace, or with the executions at the Kotwali.

A display of British possession over the Mughal mantle. this signaled an irreverence to

any traditional form of maintaining order. Such symbolic acts employed irony to reinforce

rather than to question established attitudes. Strategically, irony itself summoned beliefs

of hierarchy and subjugation, judgment and even moral arrogance. There were many acts

such as these, the Gora Bazaar replacing the Meena Bazaar, the use of the Zinat-ul-Masjid

as a bakery, turning the Audience Hall into a lodging for General Wilson, or establishing

a cantonment within the "Fort". Many of these acts did function on strategic levels as

well. Moving into &lhjahZnlbld caused an urban displacement, the cantonment itself

taking up a third of the city. So, if the British resided within the city-walls it was

imperative that it be brought under strict control. Symbolic gestures were sustained

through strategic planning so control could uphold that tenuous relationship between

dominating force and the notion that they were no longer foreign conquerors but the

rightful and indigenous rulers of India. This reasoning possibly spared Delhi the

annihilation advocated by many. Articles in the Lahore Chronicle in May 1858 stated,

"that the destntction of the city would be a wise measure, symbolic of the invincibility of

British power (Gupta 1981, p. 26). " But what prevailed was a decision of the Secretary of

State who agreed with John Lawrence, a senior government official at the time, "that the

political objectives to be gained by destroying the Palace will be gained by occupying it

(Gupta 1981, p. 26)." Not only did the Palace-Complex grant the British a cost-free and a

secure Fort but an added opportunity to prevail as Delhi's rightful inheritors. This

commenced in true Victorian style with the re-naming of the Palace-Complex's Lahore

and Delhi Gates to Victoria and Alexandra and with the area cleared out in front of them

titled, Champs de Mars.

With the Mughai Residence converted into a cantonment, Delhi's beneficiary was

compelled to bring the two remaining Palace-Complex extensions under control. The

tango orchestrated between "strategy and symbolism" was at its finest with the British

ordination over both Jumma Mosque and Chandni Chowk. Being religious and economic

extensions of the Mughal royalty, they were constructed in a becoming manner. The

Jurnrna Mosque presented the traveler with an impressive view when entering Delhi.

Princep wrote, at the time, "[tlhe Jtcmma Musjid. ..has freqiienrly been described; but no

one in writing can convey the impressions it produces on the artistic mind (Princep 1879,

p.22). '* As with any building connected to Mughal sovereignty, the British stopped all

public access to the Jurnrna Mosque and the call to prayer prohibited from its minarets.

Chandni Chowk was then made to supplement these urban voids created by the non-

functioning Mosque and Palace-Complex. The street became a palimpsest complete with

new buildings and functions, obvious in maps or photographs of the time. No longer was

it an extension of the Palace-Complex but an extension of the changes brought about by

the British. In the 1870s. a passenger descending from a train, onto the platform, was

"confronted with the sight of the proicd Queen's R o d , and tlze British statements of

faith ... the neogothic railway station and tlze classical facade of the municipal town hall,

a colonial copy of the standard 'centre' of cities in Victorian Britain (Gupta 1981, p.

56). " Chandni Chowk , a point of burgeoning commerce, and the Town Hall, the seat of

local government, replaced any local dependencies, symbolic or physical, on the Palace-

Complex. The Town Hall's clock tower even substituted for the silent minarets of the

Iumma Mosque ... a stilled "call-to-prayer" replaced with a western notion of time.

ShZhjahgnabEid was a city of incredible complexity. Historical antecedents - pinned the Palace-Complex as the major establishment of political authority. This

revealed the significance of the structure within its urban fabric. Significance, whether

symbolic or physical, depicted cultural realities. Many of these realities, shaped by the

Palace-Complex, ceded an array of unique urban patterns, such as the Chandni Chowk. It

was, afterall, a city that had thrived successfblly on a limited oligarichal trade. With

British alterations, however, DeIhi, beginning as a Mughal capital, swelled into the

seventh largest city in British India by 189 1, the wealthiest town in the Punjab by 1896,

and had the largest railway junction in India by the beginning of the twentieth century

(Gupta 198 1, p. 45). These resulting statistics are not important to the scope of this thesis.

Alterations were used as a vehicle highlighting aspects of SJ3hjahZnZbSd's urbanity in

relation to the salient features of the Palace-Complex.

PLATE 38

Shah Jahan scatcd in the Diwan-i-Khas. Compare this to Plate 40 during British occupation (Begley 1990).

PLATE 39

The Diwan-i-Khas emptied of its Mughal pomp and and occupied by the British. Compare to the Mughal miniature with Shah Jahan on Plate 38 (Vibrat 1898).

PLATE 40

Sketch of the Audience Hdl as thc quarters forGenen1 Wilson and his staff. Compare this to Plate 38 (Tytler 1986).

PLATE 4 1

Delhi in 1873. The castern section was taken over by the Britsh and uscd as il cantonment (sce Plate 35). A bukr zone was maintained by clcaring the neighborhoods in front of the Fort and a tailrod tmck sliced through the north with the Town Hall (marked by a white dot o n the map) the seat of a ncw govcrnrnent (Evenson I989).

PLATE 42

The Clock Tower (Gupta I98 1).

PLATE 43

A view of Chandni Chowk, post- 1857 (Gupta I98 I ) .

PLATE 44

Chandni Chowk and the Jummn Mosque (Guptrt 198 I ).

PLATE 45

A map showing the geometric relationship between the Palace-Complex and its two public cxtcnsions. the Iumma Mosque and Chmdni Chowk. Both extensions commanded an urban heimrchy which the British attempted to control. The measurements arc in '*gauz" [onc gauz is roughly one yard] (Saha 1995).

PLATE 46

Map of thc hmmo Mosque showing an urban realtionship bc- twecn the mohnllahs. See Plates 4 and 5 (Ehlcrs 1993 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Lughod, J. (1987). The Islamic city: Historic myth. Islamic essence. and contemporary relevance. International Journal of Middle East Studies 19, pp. 155- 176.

Alsayyed, N. (Ed.) (1992). Fonns of dominance. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Ball, C. (?). The history of the Indian mutiny. London, New York: The London Printing and Publishing Company Limited.

Banga, I. (Ed.) . (199 1). The city in Indian history. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Begley, W., Desai, Z., Khan, I. (Ed.) (1990). The Shah Jehan Nama of lnayat Khan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Berauer, 1. (1990). Michel FoucarcltT force offlight. London: Humanities Press.

Bernier, F. (translation: 1891). Travels in the mogul empire AD 1656-1 668. Delhi: S. Chand & Co.

Bhattacharya, V. (1977). The saga of Delhi. New Delhi: Metro Book Co. Ltd.

Blake, S. (199 1). Shahjahanabad. Cambridge: University Press.

Chopra, P. (1970). Delhi : History and places of interest. Delhi: Delhi Administration.

Cohn, B. ( 1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: University Press.

Idem (1976). Lve and letters under the mughais. New Delhi: Ashajanak Publications.

Dalrymple, W. (1994). City of djinns. London: Flamingo.

Ehlars, E. (1991). The imperial Islamic city : 19' century Shiihjahhilbiid I old Delhi. Environmental Design (Proceedings of the 7Lh International Convention of the Islamic Environmental Design Research Center in Rome), July 199 1.

Ehlers, E., Kmfft, T. (Ed.) (1993). @dhjahdndbGd / old Delhi : Traditional and colonial change. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart.

Embree, A. (Ed.) (1963). 1857 in India : Mutiny or War of Independence. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company.

Evenson, N. (1989).The Indian metropolis, New Haven: Yale University Press

Farooque, A.K. (1977). Roads and communicntions in mughal India. New Delhi: [AD Oriental Series.

Fonseca, R. (197 1). The walled city of old Delhi. Ekistics 182, pp. 72 - 80 .

Fryckenberg, R. (Ed.) (1986). Delhi through the ages : Essays in wban history, culture, and society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Fusfeld, W. (198 1). The shaping of sf@ leadership in Deihi : The Naqshbandiyya Mujaddidyya, 1750- 1920.

Ghalib, M. (trans. Faruqi, K.) (1970). Dastanbriy. New Delhi.

Germeraad, P. (1990). Open spaces in human settlements : The lesson from the Islamic tradition. Netherlands: H, van Leewen.

Guha, D. (1984). &2hjahdncibdd and New Delhi : A contparative analysis of urban form and pattern (Masters thesis, McGill University, 1983).

Gupta, N . (1981). Delhi between two empires, 1803-1931 : Society, government and urban growth. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Idem (1989). What is Islamic about a city? Some comparative reflections. Proceedings of the International Conference on Urbanism in Islam. Oct. 22-28, 1, pp. 194-217.

Hardy, P. (1972). The muslims of British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heber, R. (1828). Narrative of a journey through the upper provinces of India. London.

Hutchins, F. (1967). The illusion of permanence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Irving, R. (198 1). Indian summer. Yale: Yale University Press.

Kabbani, R. (1986). Europe's myths of the orient. Hong Kong: Macmillian Press Ltd.

King, A. (1976). Colonial urban development : Culture, social power and environment. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Lawson, P. (1993). The East India Company. London: Longman Group UK Limited.

Llewellyn, A. (1977). The seige of Delhi. London: MacDonald and Jane's.

Manucci, N. (ed. Edwards, MJ(1957). Memoirs of the mogul court. London: Folio Society.

Manucci, N. (trans. William. 1.)(1989). Storia do mogor. Delhi: Mehra Offset Press.

Mathur, N. (1968). Red fun and mughal life. New Delhi: Caxton Press Ltd.

Metcalfe, T. (1989). An imperial vision. Berkeley: University o f California Press.

Idem (1997). Ideologies of the Raj. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mintum, R. (1858). From New York to Delhi by way of Rio de laneiro, Australia and China. New York : D. Appleton & Co.

Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Naqvi, H. ( 1972). Urbanization and iirbarz centres iinder the great M~ighals. S imla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.

Noe, S. (1981). Old Lahore and old Delhi : Variations on a Mughal theme. Urbanism Past and Present, 6(2), pp. 1-19.

Pearson, M. (Ed.) (1985). Legitimacy and symbols : The Soicrh Asian writings of F. W. Bicckler. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Prinsep, C. ( 1879). Imperial India. London: Chapman and Hall.

Ribeiro, E. (1988). Planning initiatives with particiilar reference to the walled city of Delhi. Space, 3(2-3), pp. 58-68.

Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Random House Inc.

Saha, S. (1995). Conservation based development of &V~.jahdndbcid: The historic capital city of India. UNCRD Report Series No. 9.

Sen, S . (1957). Eighteen fim-seven. Delhi: Sree Sarawaty Press Ltd.

Singh, P., Dhamija, R. (1989). Delhi the deepening urban crisis. Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Spear, P. (195 1). Twilight of the Mughals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spear, T. (1994). Delhi : Its monuments and history. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Tytler, H. (Ed. Sattin, A.) (1986). An Englishwoman in India: The memoirs of Harriet Tytler 1828-1858. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vibart, E. (1 898). The sepoy mutiny : As seen by a subaltern. London: Smith, Elder & CO.

0 Worswick, C. (Ed.) (1976). The lost empire. New York City: Aperture Inc.

Wilberforce, R. (1895). An unrecorded chapter of the Indian mutiny. London: Bradbury, Agnew & Co.

Winks. R. (Ed.) (1963). British imperialism : Gold, God, glory. Hinsdde: Dryden Press.

Yadav, K. (1980). Delhi in 1857 : The trial of Bahndiir Shah. Gurganon. Haryana: Academic Press.