Module 8.1 Colonial Capitals: Kolkata and Delhi Role Name Affiliation National Coordinator Subject Coordinator Prof. Sujata Patel Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad Paper Coordinator Dr. Ashima Sood Assistant Professor, Woxsen School of Business, Hyderabad Dr. Surya Prakash Upadhyay Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Himachal Pradesh Content Writer Dr. Jayani Bonnerjee Assistant Professor, O.P. Jindal Global University Content Reviewer Dr. Surya Prakash Upadhyay Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Himachal Pradesh Language Editor Leela Solomon Technical Conversion Module Structure Module Title Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Kolkata and New Delhi as Seats of Imperial Power Section 3: Migration and the Urban Landscape Section 4: Poverty, Marginalisation and Urban Development Section 5: Kolkata and Delhi as Global Cities 1 Description of the Module Item Description of the module Subject Name Sociology Paper Name Sociology of Urban Transformations Module Name Colonial Capitals: Kolkata and Delhi Module Id 8.1 Pre-requisites None Objectives This module gives you a broad overview of the urban transformations that have taken place in the erstwhile colonial capital cities of Kolkata and New Delhi. It aims to introduce you to concepts and themes of postcolonial urbanism, and also explains how the colonial past of these cities continues to shape their present condition. Keywords Colonisation, imperialism, migration, urban development, global city 2 I. Introduction Colonial capitals grew as concentrated seats of political and economic power, which led to a hugely unequal urban development in erstwhile colonies (see Modules 3.2 and 3.4 for further information). Kolkata and New Delhi are no exceptions. While Kolkata initially grew from a cluster of villages to a key port of the British Empire and was later turned into the capital, New Delhi was purposely planned and built to be the new capital of British India (in great contrast to old Delhi, the seat of earlier imperial powers). Both these cities also bore the burden of a large number of refugees that arrived as a result of the turmoil surrounding Partition and Independence in 1947, which changed the demography and urban structure of these cities considerably. Although both cities share histories of being colonial capitals, the development trajectories of Kolkata and Delhi followed rather different paths. Through the 1960s and 1970s, Kolkata struggled with declining industrialisation that affected the economy of the city. At the same time, there was an apathy that typified municipal governance in the city, and Kolkata quickly acquired the epithet of a “dying city”. Delhi, in contrast, continued as the centre of political power and although it did have its share of bad governance, it was never seen as a city in decline. In recent times, both Kolkata and Delhi have been vying to emulate other world cities in various ways that recreate pockets of global experience. In this module we chart the trajectories of urban histories of Kolkata and Delhi through four main aspects: 1) We will study the growth of these cities as seats of imperial power. In this section we consider different ways in which Kolkata and New Delhi developed as colonial capitals. We also discuss how and why political power was represented through architecture which defined the visual aspect of both cities (also see Modules 3.2, 3.4) 2) We assess the role of migration in the growth and development of Kolkata and Delhi through a few case studies that are historical and contemporary (also see Modules 1.8, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9). 3) We outline how urban development became the buzzword in both cities in the post- colonial period. We consider some examples of measures taken the “develop” these cities and debate to what extent these were successful (also see Modules 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, 6.4). 4) Finally, we present the debates around ideas of the global city and look at the implications of imagining Kolkata and Delhi as world cities (also see modules 1.9, 1.12). 3 II. Kolkata and New Delhi: As Seats of Imperial Power To understand the different ways in which Kolkata (known as Calcutta till 2001) and New Delhi developed as capital cities, and also the reasons behind the shift of the capital city, one has to understand the different processes that marked both stages of colonialism - the first stage marked by the dominance of the East India Company and the second stage as part of the British Empire. In the early stages of colonialism, when the East India Company was at the helm of power, concerns around trade and commerce predominated. The Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 seriously undermined the political capabilities of the Company and its rule was ended by placing Queen Victoria as the sovereign of India. From this point onwards, an imperialist ideology was used as a political symbol of control and rule. Urban planning was used extensively to translate the political symbols of imperialism into visible form. Kolkata became the colonial capital because of its strategic location along the trade route, whereas New Delhi was deliberately planned with a deeper political ambition of imprinting British imperial rule in India (Bonnerjee 2001; also see Legg 2007). In this section, we look at different planning policies that shaped the urban landscapes of Kolkata and New Delhi during colonial times. Figure 1: Victoria Memorial (Source: Wikimedia common) Contrasting ideas and opinions exist about the level of planning intervention in Kolkata. On one hand, the prevalent image of the city is that of an unplanned and disorganised city, which also typified the initial days in the history of Kolkata. Rudyard Kipling, for example, has described Kolkata as “chance-directed, chance erected, laid and built/on the silt/ palace, byre, hovel-poverty and pride-/side by side” (Kipling, quoted in Thomas 1997). On the other hand, despite the 4 haphazard impression of the city in Kipling’s verses, Partho Datta notes that, “[Kolkata] had not only been planned, it had been severely planned” (Datta 2012: xiii). Both viewpoints reflect different aspects of urban development in Kolkata during colonial times. Although Kolkata was, at that time, the headquarters of the East India Company, Cotton points out, there was “little thought of territorial power or aggrandisement in the mind of the factors of those days” (Cotton 1904: 27). The prosperity of the traders led them to build beautiful houses along the river bank which earned the city the grand title of “city of palaces”. But this title did not have any imperial connotation. The “palaces” were grand and showy houses, demonstrating economic power, but in no way did they come to signify political power (Bonnerjee 2001). Various communities, and not just the British, benefitted from the economic growth and “embarked on an orgy of speculation in private houses” (Marshall 1985:90). However, these lavishly built mansions were sparse. The cluster around the Fort William was the most prominent, leading, Pradip Sinha, the noted urban historian, to comment that Kolkata resembled the early Victorian city, “representing a lifestyle, oblivious of the congestion and decay behind the impressive façade…” (Sinha 1978:8). This image of colonial Kolkata is in stark contrast to that of New Delhi, where every inch of space was meticulously planned (Bonnerjee 2001). By the end of the 18th century, Kolkata had emerged as the second city of the British Empire. However, unplanned growth had led to municipal problems such as overcrowding and unhealthy drainage. These problems began to be addressed during the times of Lord Wellesley, who appointed an Improvement Committee in 1803 to look into the developments of Kolkata. Datta points out that the push for planning came from a range of people such as “European civil servants, doctors, merchants and influential Indians…civil engineers, architects, town planners came much later” (Datta 2012: 5). In 1817, funds were transferred to the Lottery Commissioners, who prepared a comprehensive Lottery Committee Report that proposed raising lottery funds for a range of urban improvement projects. While improving health and sanitation was the principal motive for these plans, it also led to significant changes in the indigenous neighbourhood patterns that were typified by winding lanes and a close-knit structure. The changes that were introduced in the urban space of 5 Kolkata were not simply part of improvement and beautification projects, but also a tool to control colonial subjects. As Archer points out that the new paradigm of “corridors, avenues, straight lines and grids…was not just a matter of fire protection or drainage, or even the augmentation of the city’s imperial splendor…it was also the imposition of new means of control” (Archer 1994 cited in Home 1997: 59). 6 By the 1850s debates around the shift of the capital city had already begun, and coincided with the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. Bernard Cohn (1983) suggests that the relationship of authority between the coloniser and the colonised underwent significant changes around the time of the Mutiny, when rebellion in the ranks of native soldiers was crushed, and the British took siege of Delhi, the capital of the declining Mughal Empire. Cohn (1983) further points out that, previous attempts of Governor-Generals to impose authority in the imperial framework of the Mughals led to a contradiction in the “cultural-symbolic constitution”. This contradiction was eradicated with the proclamation of Queen Victoria as the Empress of India in 1858. Following this, there was a need to find a capital city effectively uphold the imperial aura. Delhi came under the British rule in 1857 and made the capital of British India in 1911. Between 1877 and 1911, three coronation ceremonies or durbars were held in Delhi. The first was the Imperial Assemblage in 1877 that crowned Victoria as the Empress of India.