• BRITISH ALTERATIONS TO THE PALACE-COMPLEX OF A A A A SHAHJ AHAN AB AD

SHAHID MAHMOOD

A thesis submitted ta the Faculty ofGraduate Studies and Research in partial fulf111ment of the requirements for the degree of Master In Architecture.

School OfArchitecture McGill University, Montreal November, 1997 • @ SHAlllD MAHMOOD, 1997 INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced tram the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, sorne thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others rnay be tram any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substanctard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

ln the unlikely event that the author did nat send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be notecl. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had ta be removed, a note will indieate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings. charts) are reproduced by s8Ctioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing tram left ta right in equal sections with small overtaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6- x 9- black and white photographie prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contad UMI directly ta oraer.

Bell &Howellinfonnation and Leaming 300 North Z8eb Raad, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1348 USA GD

UMI800-521-œoo National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1+1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1 A ON4 canada Canada Vour hlfl Varn. refèfllflC8

Our tUs Norf. f.f.fBIIC8

The author bas granted a non­ L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library ofCanada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distnbute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies ofthis thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic fonnats. la fonne de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership ofthe L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels May be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

0-812-43983-6

Cana

.i';lflrlt:"~~f' ~ f;~ rç,.~ '1'

a.•• _ ~I u.- / ..... OV8\ft#H\frH':'HS ~~;...rh.:''';"

U~ .~nr,"

.:;- ~\7 t' .. - V • •

THE DEVASTATlON OF DELHI-A LAMENT KHW;\J;\ ALTAf m:SAI~ 'HAU'

I)c:ar (ri.:n&!. 1 bam:h ~-ou, spc:ak ROf of rhc Dclhi dut i.'l no more. ( c:mnur bc:ar to liSlen ra rhe s,Ill Sfnl')' of this cit\', () nilfhrinlP!I:, 1 implo~ l'nu, ,in~ nll( a IOnll of ~u'tumn. \\'hile wc laufll and r:dk. ho\\' an wc mourn with your o mil1litRI. :1t weh ~ rime, whem nll' be:ut cn\'~ plcaUR. Do nOl l)CJfin a hl:Olrt.pic~il1lf rv.r..JI, () rM"er'l'3inrcr, ~u not O(lm be(on: lU an ~Ihum o( paintinp. Ir will unh' Mllind lU of thc: ",'ub..·.rr..t of thc: past, o m)' hc:an. nkc ~. 110 nar nt:lJce mt: w~" tilte a bn\"Y douci. The llC:CO.lJ1 of blood is lhrubbinr in n'Y vcint, o ad\'t:nrunt. yaut harT will Ile snn:d wien pain and ,nef, He:arkcn fQ me. do lIQf 'A inro the ruin. 0( Delhi. At C\"cry .P. prieclCll pearla lie buril:d bcnc:ath rhe dam. Sa pbclf in lhe world is ID rich ",ith hiddcn m::.UR, E,'CQ rhe mc:a of wbat ~indc:d U'I nt the cit)"l dauuction are !JOne:. Uar hea\'lfn, an thm: bc: arn::arcr ullli\"ion d'In rMt? Th.. who :an: rcmc: MYe (ur;utn:t1 11.1. \Vc tOO have cnscd ta rhinle cl rbem. Times haVI: cfw1~ as th~' can un-ct chan(œ apin, r.an rua point ta any (amily whic:h dna nor heu ~ Dcu hca\'Cn. rhar made UI "c:c:p. c:e::l'll:. [ ~h )'IIU. Buc do nar 1er Ift'anll:n muck Il'l. If chey "'Cn: tu muw out plilfhr. nor only friend. Dur rhe whule wodd would pit)' lIS. o cup-bc:aRr. who ~ the lut round of wiRlf, Du Ror nU it 10 dtc brinl. and 1« no rhine lx full)' qucnched. Fur nuu' rhc:ir Ion~ IJ'CU of M'uad fununc lies al_p. Du nll( awalœ rhem. 0 whc:c:l o( rime. thcy are lift... in slumbcr. Cl nlin" and i.!)·. hurcn henelf. Delhi is no pla" (nr l'OU an)' lUCIft. ra. an" Uc:lhi w:as the a:llen: ur ~n and scienec. Rut the ~n u( pœlry i" Jc:ld. I1ctVl:r ru be hum :apin. Du nor (ltinc (Of' the ICfuriC'l nf rhe p.ut, 'Ghalib'. 'Sbc(ra'. 'Sa~'~t·. ':\~unLt· md "ZaUl1' u·iJ1 ncnt coOle ~pin. ACcu 'Momin', ':\l:avi' and 'Schbai', who is le(t rn ~[lQk IIf Ihe: arr of pactry? The lillhr of rhcit (Cn::ItnCSl ~bo sh.1f1C on Il' whl! "'cn: nor Jn:2r. Listcn ID the pout). of 'Oap' and ',\Iairuh'. (or aller lhma Su nilJhtinpfc wiU "":Smic: in rhi" roM!-lr.Inlc:n. ThCIIC fflrnbd'",.u of dIe put ;&ft no lUon!, And ir is umccmlr dut 1 slmuld me"c uthen \Virh m)' own lament. (Enltlish rmdcrins br Dt Yunus Jafrery)

Sam: This "',l"i,,, \\"1'\ m:ilcd Il\" H:di :Ir il ,,,,"b,,',,,.. in Uhute in 1R7", D:al!~ and ll..inth wcrc :ununlt du: l.l'r \un'ivu" .t! dlt: ninCfecnth-ecnrury Delhi pul:tll-Mairuh livc:d lill l'lO: and Oawh tiU l'JOS,

• • ABSTRACT

Built on the ruins of earlier cities, the Mughal Emperor Shâhjahân founded Shâhjahânâbâd in 1639. CradIing a fort, the city expended itself down the sociallhousing sttata to a wall. This wall not only brought coherence to any one group but provided an interaction amongst them. These cohesive units fonned neighborhoods called mohallahs, marked by reügious, economic and social liaisons, their identity legitimizing the power of certain individuais 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 ta exercise control over the city.

RESUME

Construite sur les ruines dtanciennes villes, s.hâhjahânâbâd fut fondée par l'Empereur Mughal Shâhjahân en 1639. Embrassant le fort, la ville s'est développée à travers les différentes couches sociales jusqu'au mur. Le mur n'apponait pas seulement de la cohérence à chaque groupe, il permettait une intéraction entre eux. Ces unités cohérentes déterminèrent des quartiers appelés mohallahs, marqués par des liaisons religieuses, économiques et sociales, leur identité légitimant le pouvoir de certains individus et institutions. Le Complexe du Palace délimitait le pinacle de cette hiérarchie urbaine. Cette thèse démontre l'importance du Complexe du Palace et comment les Brittaniques l'occupèrent après la rebellion Sepoy en 1857 dans l'espoir d'exercer leur contrôle sur la ville•

. • 1 • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1 would like to thank Vikram Bhatt for the invaluable guidance he provided throughout the tenu as my advisor. Marcia King and Helen Dyer are bath saviors in the truest sense, without whom, aIl administrative hurdIes would have seemed painful. Aiso on this "list of appreciarion" 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 1owe everything.

• ü • TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS u

CHAPTERI 1.1 Rationale 1 1.2 Literature Review 2 1.3 Research Question 3 1.4 Goals and Objectives 3 1.5 Methodology 4

CHAPTERII Historical Background 5

CHAPTERm Introduction to the Accounts 14 3.1 Court Chronicles ofShahjahan 15 3.2 The Accaunts of Francois Bernier 18 3.3 The Accounts of Niccolao Manucci 20 3.4 The Accaunts of Harriet Tytler 21 3.5 The Accounts of Edward Vibart 22 3.6 Shahjahanabad Compiled from Texts 23 3.7 Description ofthe Postal System 24

CHAPTERIV British Changes to the Palace-Complex 26

CHAPTERV Rationalizing the Alterations 36

CHAPTER VI Physical and Symbolic Presence 44 • BmLIOGRAPHY 50 CHAPTERI • INTRODUCTION

The subject of the following study deals specifically with Shâhjahânâbâd. 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.

1.1 RATIONALE

U •••the traditional llnselfconscious process of mahal/ah formation have yielded similar patterns in the more private parts ofthe city. ln spite ofsllbstantiai deterioration in social structure, this mohallah organization still provides a valuable basis for identification with places and groups. Thus without the benefit of consciOllS planning, one of the fundamental objectives of urban design has been achieved. This sort of structure, ofcourse, is a feature ofaimost ail traditional cities. Again, there is a message for planners working in the third world. Look very closely both ar your goals and the sIums 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 ofopen ended questions, applicable to ail city-dwellers:

i. What were tire various factors that conditioned contemporary urban growth and problems? Whar can we [eam from this?

Il. Colonial city-planning suited the needs ofthe few but how did the indigenous population adapt ro these "reprisaIs"? ili.. How does our understanding of a developing country, having been an ex­ • colony. carry any bearing on urban and housing design? iv. What are the links between environment, socialorganization, and behavior? If • any, how are they reflected architecturally?

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In selecting Shâhjahânâbâd as a case-study there are sorne basic components which comprise tbis research. These components, when used to delineate the urea of interest, identify key issues of the problem. Aspects pertinent anly ta the tapie keep the focus within the proposed parameters.

• The component of the mohallah carries with it a sweeping range of information. Ta understand this urban phenomenoo it is necessary to concern the study with other traditional systems in place. Information obtained shauld relate ta the urban geography and history of Shâhjahânâbâd [relevant authors: J. Abu-Lughod, P. Germeraad] .

• When looked at in detail, the mohallah and the Palace-Cornplex in Shâhjahânâbâd have adopted the tides that have shaped its contemparary society and environment. The abject of the study would be to serve as a historical link to understand the farmation and meaning of urbanization patterns and the "spatial structuring" of a society [relevant authors: Anthony King, Eckart Ehlars, Thomas Krafft, Samuel Noe, lamai Malik, R. Fonseca, N. Gupta, R. Fryckenberg, Shovan Saha] .

• Although umbilically tied ta its physical morphology, Shâhjahânâbâd's social structuring of society is imperative ta comprehend, not ooly to understand the social and political relationships the Muslims had amangst themselves but with their immediate neighbors. In doing so, a tangential relationship is revealed between human activity and the physical making of cilies [relevant authors: A. Popovic, Warren Fusfeld, lamaI Malik, P. Spear, /. Banga. Hameeda Naqvll .

• What ramifications did the Sepoy Rebellion have on Sbâhjahânâbâd'? The scope is • much more limiting: it dealt with the distinctive effect the Rebellion of 1857 had on 2 the walled city. British attitudes towards Shâhjahânâbâd changed, distinctively

different to what they had been priar ta 1857 [relevant autllors: B. Cohn, R. Irving, • ~ Ainslee Embree, F. Buck/er, Eckart Eh/ars, Thomas Krafft, Samuel Noe, lalnal Malik, K.C. Yadav).

These camponents form a methodology far researching the changes which took place in an existing urban fabric. Using travel accounts, key historical events and documentation of prevalent traditions can tend a picture towards how Shâhjahânâbâd \Vas changed. This not only speaks t)f a physical change in the city's morphology but a prevalent change of attitudes in Imperial ranks. Consequently, "it might he pointed out that urban history invariably involves problems ofconceptualizatinn, and we clarify tlze concepts that are crucial to our understanding of the urban phenomena, the study 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-Camplex affect Shâhjahânâbâd after the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857?

1.4 GOALS AND OBJECflVES

The notion of empire, the belief in one entity by forced privilege legitimately ruling over another, gave cise to sorne very potent tendencies in the social practice of design. How did the British identify a functioning Mughal city? How did they ga about changing it? How did the Shâhjahânâbâd 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 Shâhjahânâbâd and its morphology yield decisive aspects ofits urban fabric, an important tool for judging any city. The Rebellion thus becomes a vehicle for highlighting the unique features ofShâhjahânâbâdts urbanity. • 3 • 1.5 METHODOLOGY Within the research scope, the sources used will be detennined by key words such as Shâhjahânâbâd, Palace-Camplex, and Sepoy Rebellion. It will limit itself from the time of the Rebellion ta 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.

• 4 • PLATE 1

A .D

•

c

The historical evolution of the wallcd city of Delhi. (A) The original site with Islam Shah"s old fort on the river and the ruins of Firozabad south of the dotled Hne. (B) The designed infrastructure of Shahjahanabad. (C) Areas destroycd by the British. (0) The present-day city development (Noe (981). • • PLATE 2

_·····8IMt1lll1C

·.~oF _____ ""lOt

A map showing Sultanate India (Hardy 1972)

• • PLATE 3

,.. o

--(o'-'-"""l~af"'~ E_. l!cIwndoII_llI CI'l..r5wlLln.l'" O[UlI AallAn~.....f'1 ...-....---.-.... '

Mughal power al its widesl effective extenl (Hardy (972).

• • PLATE 4

2 EllItrllnl

_ "'U.Ut•••, =1&1'" ~ ."'U-"" o..,...... •.•' E::I Cüt..,c...... ~ .; follI._(),.w.. e.-..,

• :::;.:::'-:':.':1 '..: ...... t1,

..., ... '.,...ICII ' ...... SIlen G4I .... ~Slll_"• .,,~ ...... "".....

'Nlf:~ 3 ISIl 11911 .....,•.,•., ... r....., ••• t .....

~·1. ,., """'" litt....'. ,).QQg.o:r' 'C"~~Q~ ".~ :.-f1 , t '

....." ' 1 ...... \ , ~ .l ~ , ' 1 ' 1 ~ ,Un ,.., ;.It ' ..r ..' : I.. ~

1

1

...aag~Clagr::J' , 1 .~·M ...t... 1 .::...., ,JII...... 'HI"""; • ~.::. 1.::'. 'NM. c...... ,..... 11' ... lM•• Mt ...... 4t '"h...... li • ~ .." ::~ ...... ,... fÂtI'''' tilt .. _.... \ ...... '1IHI'''' ~ .~ ...... -,-;...... , , , .:.....: .., '''- j

_ ~ .., , 4 ".\JlIIWh" ....1. ~ 41...... , "htfl .. ~tft IJ'~ 1 ... \"hou 1 r....,...... ,.... e.-.t... 1

Models of urban arder in an '1s1amic city" according to various authors (Ehlcrs 1993).

• • PLATE 5

Models ofurban arder in an "[slamie city" according to various aUlhors (Ehlcrs 1993).

• CHAPTERII • mSTORICAL BACKGROUND

Chapter two will deal with a history of Shâhjahânâbâd. History is not conceived as an independent entity but as an encompassing manifestation of culture, religion and architecture. This discourse played a pivotai role in forming and stoking political affiliations prior to the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857. The abject of trus chapter, then, would be to serve as a historical link ta understand the formation and meaning of British attitudes towards Shâhjahânâbâd.

The British assumed the role of caretakers in Shâhjahânâbâd 1803. BuUt on the remains of older cities it had been a Mughal residence since being built in 1639 by the Mughal Emperor Shâhjahân. It was a walled city, bordered by the Jumna River on the east, and cradIing a monumental palace-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 Shâhjahânâbâd with the rest of the city being built through infiU. 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 Shâhjahânâbâd.

Why was there such importance attached historically to the site of Old Delhi? Why the manyaspirants ta power? There were six cities on the site before Shâhjahân built bis 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 ofDelhi is the potential master ofHindustan and, since the wealth oflndia is to be found in Hindustan, its master is the potential master ofthe whole peninsula (Spear 1969, pp. 3J. " 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 fallies of any defensive worth until the Indus was

5 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 oflndia are forever looking down on the plains of lndia; 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 Mughals did from the time ofAkbar to that ofMuhanlmad Shah, and as the British Govemment did on the restricted scale (Ibid. 2)". It was out of these very passes that the Ghaznavid roler Mahmood began his subcontinent incursions. Every summer (ci~ea.l000AD) 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 lndia would have been spread open before him until the fertile riee-paddies of BengaL This strategical faet was recognized by every desirous power and the possession of Delhi became instrumental.

CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF DELHI ORDER DATE SETTLEMENT FOUNDERS 1 1 900BC Indraprastha Yodhistra 2 1020AD Suraj Kund Anang Pal 3 1052 Lai Kot Prithviraj Chauhan 4 1180 Qila Rai Pithora 5 1288 Kilokheri Muiz-ud·din Kaiquabad (; II 1301 Siri Allaudin Khiliji 1 III 1321-23 Tughlakabad Gayasudin Tughlak 8 1325 Adilabad Mohammad Tughlak 9 IV 1327 Jahanpanah Mohammad Tughlak 10 V 1354 Ferozabad Feroz Shah Tughlak Il 1415 Khirabad Khirakhan 12 1425 Mubarakabad Mubarak Shah 13 VI 1530·56 Dinpanah Humayun SherGarh SherShah 14 VU 1638 Shahjahanabad Shahjahan 15 1912 Delhi British Capital

Roman numeraIs depict the seven cities ofDelhi. From Gordon R. Hearn'sSeven Cilies ofDelhi, 1906.

The Mahabharata, in the earliest reference to a seulement of Delhi, mentioned a city, Indraprastha, built along the banks of the Jumna. Cunningham dated the city at around the fifteenth century Be (Chopra 1970, pp. 3). The site of the seulement came iuto 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 6 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 ioto obscurity and there is u no reference o[ indraprastha...in any ofthe works ofthe Greek writers, who chronicled the canlpaigns of

Alexander the Great in the [ourth century BC (Chopra 1970, pp. 4). H The advent of the thirteenth century AD brought to the subcontinent its first foreign rulers. It took foreigners to fully realize the strategie importance Delhi held and this grip was not relaxed until Independence was established in 1947. Qutb-ud-din, the faunder of the Turkish lineage in India erected the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque from the materials of demolished temples. He aIso commenced the building of the Qutb Minar 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 rus Muslim Empire. This dynasty, known as the Mamluks. managed to safe-keep Delhi from Mongol attacks by heavily fortifying the city's defenses and

CI added...splendor to his court by modeling it on the style of the old Persian monarchs and introduced Persian etiquette, ceremonies, and festivities The destruction of the Khi/afat ofBaghdad (by the Mongols) made Delhi the asylum ofmany a Muslim crown and a refuge o/the exiled princes (Chopra 1970, pp. JO)."

Through a couplet of the treacheries the Khalijis came to mIe over Delhi. Their mIe made Delhi a juggemaut with Ala-ud-din going as far as bestowing the title of Dar­ ul-khi/afah (seat of the Khilafat) upon the city. Literary figures and scholars tlocked the Delhi Court such as Amir Khusrau and Amir Hasan. New suburbs and townships were built, all testifying ta grandiose architectural designs. The Ala-i-Danvaza, an extension to the Quwwat-ul-IsIam Masque; the Hall of the Thousand Pillars of Siri, protected by massive walis against the looming threat ofMongol incursions; the Hauz Khas, a cistem; and the A/ai Minar, an unfinished pillar, initially began ta surpass Qutb Minar, all • reflected the imponance Delhi commanded at the time. 7 As with all royallineages the Khaljis fell victims ta the intrigues of a nobleman • and were saon replaced by the ex-govemor of Punjab, Ghazi Tughlak, who become the founder of the Tughlak dynasty in L320 AD. The next eleven rulers of tbis dynasty built three cities in the Delhi vicinity: Tughlakabad, Jahanpanah, and Ferozabad. The new

capital of Tughlakabad was built in about four years for U twice the population of the medieval city ofLondon (Singh 1989, pp. 15)." Within a generation tbis fourth Delhi was abandoned when Ghazi Tughlak was assassinated. His son and kilIer, 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, bis successor Firuz Tughlak, devoted ms energies towards easing the suffering caused by bis predecessor. Firozabad, bis 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 uthe Windsor ofDelhi"J. It was

an U open city, without a wall around it and the shape was more or less a half hexagon with the base facing the river. lts subllrbs joined the suburbs of the city which was in existence side by side with the new one...Feroz Shah who, in addition to aIl these brought the great tank Hauz Khas into its highest development, including the establishment ofa

university on ifS shores (Guha 1983, p. Il). IJ

In the fllSt week of December, 1398, Delhi was ransacked by Timur the Lame. This ancestor of Babur forced the last Tughlak ruler ta fiee to Gujarat and acquired the immense wealth ofDelhi. After leaving, all signs ofmaterial prosperity vanished from the city. For three months Delhi remained without a govemment and with a severely reduced

population. Abdul Qadir BadauDÎ, a historian at the time, recorded, CIthose of the

inhabitants who were Iejt, died offamine and pestilence while for IWo months not a bird moved wing in Delhi. " • 8 The Lodi Dynasty seized Delhi through a coup in 1450. During their seventy-five • year role 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, stllfted the capital back ta Dinpanah in Delhi. Credit for the building of this city was aIso given to Sher Shah, who ousted Humanyun briefly and ruled from Delhi. He expanded and extended the Purana Qila all the way ta Feroz Shah Katla. After Humanyun, Delhi was left for sorne time in limbo as successive Mughal Emperors, Akbar and Jahangir, preferred Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, and Lahore as their capitaIs. AlI this changed with Shâhjahân.

Shâbjahânâbâd was built for royalty but filled by the poor. A wall which encompassed the town plan, controlled bath 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 intemal hierarchy, ofmasques, [which] was part of the concept of the city, a fact which becomes evident from the Emperor's allocation of land ta the shurafa[Muslim gentry]. lt was repeated in the decree ofShâhjahân conceming the construction ofmasques primarily jrom east to the west, or north to south, jollowing the imperial perspective. This official city planning necessarily had ta manifest itself in a hierarchy of masques itself: the royal lâmi' Mosque was succeeded by eight eUte (begumi, amiri) mosques...at the other end of This hierarchy stood the so called mahal/ah-mosques, numbering about two-hundred (Ehlers 1993, pp. 51)."

Mohallahs had inherent mIes governing its physical morphology. Regional hierarchies within Shâhjahânâbâd gave tise to spatial surroundings unique to the type of quarter. These quarters were embedded in a complex weave with their nonns not only relating to economic dependencies but aIso 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-Punjâbî (Punjabis' quarter) or Mohallah-i-Sawdâgar (traders' quarter), it was • the "identity-giving religious institution" which was key to locating these specifie

9 professions. It was this that determined the life inside as weil as outside the mohallah • (Ehlers 1993, p. 46). Shâhjahân planned bis 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. U Bernier, who lived in the city saon after it !lad been huilt in 1638, was struck by the extent to which the eCO/Lonûc and social as weil as tlle political life hinged on the monarch, the court and the...He saw great opulence and a great abundance ofprovisions, but also great squalor. The city /zad sorne stone and sorne brick palaces, ringed by mud and thatch houses. The merchants worked and lived in second storeys ofthe buildings and arcades along the two boulevards radiating from the palace

(Gupta 1981, pp. 2). r' Mohallahs, thus, had formal site plans, conceived not as independent entities as in Lahore, but very much related to their immediate surroundings. Cansequently, the shurafa (Islamic gentry), settled along the main boulevards keeping a

direct link to the Emperor's palace. Other Ilsocial groups hierarchically settled around the palace according ta their respective social status. lntportant bazaars, markets, soon developed along the connecting Unes ofimportant institutions like the Fatahpiirî Masjid, Qâdî kâ Hawd (cistem ofthe qazi), the Jâmi' Masjid and the Kalân 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 Masque and in North-Billîmarân just southeast of the FatahpQrî Mosque. lslamic mohallahs were located close to all the large mosques for "according to a decree ofShâhjahân, in every Lane, bazaar. square and street a mosque was to he found (Blake 1986, p. l81)." Mosques for all Muslims were material manifestations oftheir culture and always worked in conjunction with !slamic institutions to structure the mohallah. These various institutions played pivotai roles in forming and • stoking political affiliations prior to the Sepoy Rebellion of l857. 10 Shâhjahân's soo, Aurângzeb, and rus successors speot most of their time in city­ • camps, in the Deccan As a consequence, the physical morphology of Shâhjahânâbâd 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 no! ta conquer but only to loot. He carried away many camelloads of wealth Jrom Delhi, the Peacock Tltrone crowning it ail. He a/so ordered a massacre, which filled Chandni Chowk with corpses and made Izis naIne in north lndia comparable with that ofWallenstein in central Europe in tlze 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 ofthe British East lndia Company in 1803 at the Battle ofPatparganj (across the river[roln the palace) but the Mugha/s found that they had anly exchanged one master for another. Delhi, with Agra, [ormed part of the British booty. (Eh/ers 1993, p. 34)." A victorious General Lake entered Delhi in 1803 at the invitation of the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam, 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 ta monopolize teade in the eastem 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... Iland it was qllite evident that his empire was actllally limited ta the area within the walls of his palace (Eh/ers 1993, pp. 15)." Saon after 1803, British influence in Shâhjahânâbâd became quite visible. Colonial culture was put-up in two main areas ofthe city. Inside the walls, two European enclaves existed north-west and south of the royal complexes. Northwest of the city there was a four ta 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 Delhi. On September Il the 11 British breached the city walls and on the twentieth of the same month the fort was • breached. Everybody in the Fort was shot dead and Bahadur Shah was banished to Rangoon in 1858 for posterity. "The military authorities insisted that a fine should be imposed on aIl supporters ofthe late reginze, and it was generally held that as Hindus were as a community weil disposed towards the British and the Muslims as a community were hostile, the Hindus should be exemptedJrom any penalty (Sen 1957, pp. 118J. "

With the Rebellion of 1857 it can be assumed that the sepoys acted out of aIlegiance to the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah II. As a direct descendent of Shâhjahân, he was allowed to slip into this ucentral-place system of dominance". Support

which Ubegan as a fight for religion ended as (l war ofindependence, for there is not the slightest doubt that the rebe/s wanted to get rid ofthe alien govemment and restore the old arder of which the King of [ndia was the rightful 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 aIso no longer sought the acquiescence of local authorities, but imprinted the presence of a military force in Shâhjahânâbâd. These developments had definite effects on the "socio-sparial structure a/the city {Guha 1994, p. 59)." The Emperor was exiled, the palace confiscated, mosques were sacked and a cantonment established within the PaIace-Complex. With decisive aspects of ils urban fabric being Islamic, and influences like the Naqshbandi Sufis, who developed many of these institutions into centers of politicai dissent and propaganda, the British had no choice but to change and police the city ofShâhjahânâbâd.

Over time, Shâhjahânâbâd absorbed the tides that have shaped its contemparary 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 along with the spatial structuring of its society. Umbilically tied to its physical

12 morphology, Shâhjahânâbâd's social structuring of society is imperative ta 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 Shâhjahânâbâd? The scope is much more limiting. It deals with a distinctive eifect the Rebellion had on the city within a particular area. British attitudes towards Shâhjahânâbâd 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 nlight he pointed out lltat urban history invariably involves problems of conceptualization. and unless we clarify the concepts rhat are crucial to our understanding of the urban phenomena. the study can

never transcend being no more than a mere historicaL narration (Mudbidri 1983. p. 3). J'

• 13 • CHAPTERill INTRODUCTION TO THE ACCOUNTS

Historically, the site of Shâbjahânâbâd cradled both incredible wealth and immense power. In tum, 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. Ibn Battuta of Tangiers noted of Tughlak's

Delhi, U [ItJ is a vast and magnificent city...The walls which surround titis city are simply unparalleled. Tizere is room inside the wallfor horsemen and infantry to march fram one end ofthe town to the other...(Battuta 1929)." The waning of one Delhi brought the rise of another, and as the Mughal Empire consolidated itself, Europeans started taking notice of the jusùy-fabled riches.

Sorne European kings, seeking financial patronage, sent emissaries out to Delhi while other individuals struck out on their own ta seek persona! wealth. Contemporaries. François 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. François Bernier was a highly educated French doctor who was in high demand by the Mughal aristocracy. For all Bemier's elite euracentricism, Niccolao Manucci was a very much a man-for-the-moment, running away from home as a stowaway and then becoming an anilleryman in the Mughal army. Having sided with Oara Shukoh, in 'the battle of succession' far the Mughal tbrone, 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 altemating with persona! escapades, and stories with fables. The two Oelhi's, then, are depicted quite differently. "With their two very different viewpoints, one the angst-strllck French inteLIectual, the other the ex-con and hard nosed Venetian man of action, Bernier and Manucci c%ur in the gilded outlinesprovided by the Mughals' own court chronicles and • theirminiature paintings (Dalrymp/e 1993, p. 195)." 14 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 soldier who was part of the Delhi garrison. These descriptions defer from their European predecessors in that tbey abet the British Empire's control aver Delhi and becomes .. as Curzon referred to OrientaIist studies, as the 'necessary fumiture' of empire. Colonel Edward Vibart illustrates this in writing,

lelndeed, for severaL weeks subsequent to the capture ofthe city, whoLesale executions of mutineers and other rebels were carried out daily. These wretches lIsed to he strllng up on a gallows erected for the purpose on a platform in front ofthe Kotwallee, {this} was undoubtedly necessary to instiLL terror in the rninds ofthe unwavering and those stiLL bent on defying our authority (Vibrat 1898, p. 151). "

Inayat Khan's Shah Jehan Nama is the one text used, not logged by a foreign traveler. Althodgh sycophantic, the account differed in no way from the European accounts. It has its own agenda; with depictions of Shâhjahân's obsession with bis unique place in history. The chronicles, thus, unfold the pageantry of Shâhjahân'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 Shâhjahânâbâd, after the 1857 Rebellion. This raises the study abave mere speculation and brings it to the realm ofcredibility. The following excerpts from the Shah Jehan Nama, were descriptions of how these people saw the city of Shâhjahânâbâd. The emphasis is on the Royal Palace and its immediate environs.

3.1 THE COURT CHRONICLES Of SHÂHJAHÂN

The initial chronicles of Shâhjahân were written in three volumes called the Padshah Hama by 'Abd al-Hamid Labori and Muhammad Waris. The flowery text praised Shâbjahân to an extent that bis mortality became questionable. On December 10, • 1657, shortly after the completion of the third volume of the Padshah Nama, a noble by 15 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 • Uunmanageable length" and undertook the project of an ·edited version', known today as the Shah Jehan Nama. He stated in a preface, "...it occllrred to the writer ofthese pages that he and his ancestors had long beell devoted servants to the imperiaL dynasty, il would be weil for him to write the history ofthe illustrious reign ofHis Majesty in clear and simple style...considerable use to ordinary readers (Begley 1990, p. 3J."

The one image most prevalent in the Shah Jehan 1Valna was one of the Mughal Emperor arriving at Shâhjahânâbâd on the Jumna River by boat. A typical entry by Inayat Khan read: UBeginning of 1063 A.H., and Auspicious Entry into the Metropolis of Shâhjahânâbâd. On Friday the 11tl1 ofMuharram 1063 (12 December 1652), corresponding ro the 22nd ofthe solar month ofi\zar. which was the time appointed for the sublime arrivaI at the metropoLis of Shâhjahânâbâd, His Majesty proceeded on board a boat and entered the regal palace by the gate facing the river. On this auspicious occasion, the mansab ofthe Sultan Sulaiman Shikoh, who was govemor ofthe province ofKabul. was augmented by 1,000 andflXed al 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 admiralty was weIl equipped to mobilize an effective armada for rapid marches and displays of strength. As recorded by Inayat Khan, Shâhjahân, often traveled along the Jumna from Agra to Shâhjahânâbâd. And in the summer, when the city was stricken with epidemics and heat waves the Mughal Court would ·tlotilla' its way up to Mukhlispur, known for its cooler climate, north of the metropolis (BegJey 1990, p. 535). Boats, omamented with rich tapestries, were a1ways kept in a state of readiness. An entourage of nobility and mansabdars always followed the royal barge. One important achievement of Shâhjahân'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. 119).

16 • A processional entrance to the Palace-complex was a show of MughaI might. The importance of which can be seen when the Emperor retumed to Shâhjahânâbâd 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 harses. An arrivaI by boat on the Jumna made no difference. The Emperor still camped outside the city before marching over-ground into Shâhjahânâbâd. Inayat Khan wrote, ..... the

monarch whose throne is firmament, having boarded a boat al the landing glzat of Khawaja Khizr where his calnp was pitched, started offin joy and gladness for the new

metropolis. At the precise moment that the ephemeres had declared to he propitioust His Majesty quitted the river and proceeded to make a ceremaniallS entry inta the splendid palaces of the fort (Begley 1990, p. 408J." Atop a throne strapped to an elephant and surrounded by nobles and ministers, the Emperor would enter the city. "ln this arder the Imperial procession wended its ways thraugh the bazaars of old Delhi and entered the Fort by the Lahori Gate. They aIl dismollnted. The Emperor sat down for a while in the HaLL ofPublic and Private Audiences in succession...[and) finally...retumed 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 mIes 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 Shâhjahân religiously maintained. He would appear, at sun-cise, at a jharoka facing the Jumna's bank. Crowds of people flacked to the balcony submitting their appeals to Shâhjahân. Aiter an hour, a military pageant passed by for review signaling an end to this moming session. These cases were not deait with on the spot but later, before the Emperor at the Diwan-i-Am or Diwan-i-Khas. Anything straying from this routine caused public uncest. This happened on September 16, 1657, when Shâhjahân feU sick to "constipation and strangury". He could not appear at the

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

17 jharoka window ofthe royal sleeping chamber in the Fort at Shâhjahânâbâd, in order to reassure the populace who had become greatly disturbed by his absence (Begiey 1990, p. • 542). "

Another aspect ofthe Fort-Complex that Inayat Khan goes lengths to describe was the history and construction of the canal which supplied water ta Shâhjahânâbâd. He attributed the initial making of the canal ta Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlak. This silted up in the course of time. It was later repaired under Akbar's reign but only iITigated the governor's jagir (land). When the time came ta construct the ~new metropolis', Shâhjahân 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 Walled City. Not only was it channeled ta the various gardens but it aIso fumished the hamam (bath) with ail its requirements. The hamam was made up of three apartments which were partitioned by corridors. Two of these apartrnents faced the river and due to their relative isolation were a favorite place of the Emperor ta conduct important business. Another place for transacting secrets was the Shah Burj (the King's Tower). This was situated in the north-eastem corner of the Palace-Complex. The Nahr-i-Bihisht, here again, supplied the center of the tower's northem wall with a marble water cascade (Mathur 1968, p. 17). Water, quite literally, gave life to these structures of Shâhjahânâbâd and was mentioned time and again in the accounts ofFrançois Bernier.

3.2 THE ACCOUNTS OF FRANÇOIS BERNIER [1656·1668]

François Bernier was born in Joué September 25, 1620 at a time when Louis XIII 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 ta Egypt where he sailed for Surat. Reaching the subcontinent, Bernier was caught between Prince Aurangzeb and Prince Dara Shukoh who were fighting for the Mughal thrane. Dara had asked Bernier to stay with him as bis physician. • But when the young prince fled ta Sindh, defeated by bis brother, Bernier proceeded to

18 Shâhjahânâbâd alone. From there~ he went to Lahore, Kashmir, and Sheraz. He arrived back in Marseil1es, where he had his travels published in 1670. Years later he died in • Paris on September 22, 1688.

Bernier taJked of Delhi as rivaling Paris in "beauty, extent and nUlnber of inhabitants. " The beauty of Delhi was different than that of European cities due to the dictates of climate, "t/zat what is lIseful and proper in at Paris, London or Amsterdam. would be entirely out ofplace at Delhi; insomuch that if ft were possible for any one of those great capitals ta change place \1/ith the metropalis ofthe lndies, it lt:auld become necessary to thraw down the greater part of the city, and ta rebuild it on a totally different plan (Bernier 1891, p. 240)." He noted that the city was ordered by two main streets. HThey run in a straight Une nearLy as far as the eye can reach; but the one [eading to Lahor gate is much the longer. ln regard to houses the two streets are exactly alike. As in our Place RoyaIs, there are arcades on both sides; with the difference, however, that they are only brick, and rhat the top serves for a terrace and has no

additional building...The hOllses ofthe merchants are bullt over... warehouses, al the back

ofthe arcades (Bernier 1891, p. 245). tt Houses were designed with open areas where they could sleep, whether it be in courts, gardens or on terraces. These were assiduously watered ta 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. !ts 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 1891, p.243).

As the paIatial physician, Bernier had access to the ioner sanctums of the royal­ complex. After describing the Nagar-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 Seraglia contains beautiful apartments, separated and more or Less spacious and splendid according to the rank and incorne ofthefemales. Nearly every chamber has its reservoir ofrunning water at the door; on every side are gardens, delightful alleys, shady retreats, • streams, grottoes...Within the walls ofthis enchanting place, in fine, no oppressive or as 19 inconvenient heat is felt. The eunuchs speak with extravagant praise of a small tower, • facing the river, which is covered with plates... (Bernier 1891, p.267)." Another structure which Bernier described in sorne depth was the Karuansara (the sadie 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 mns 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. Ushek, and other foreign merchants, who in general may he 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 ta them. U His book has more action in it: rather than fussing about the relative merits ofParisian and MughaL architecture (Dalrymple 1994, p.194)." These are bis accounts.

3.3 THE ACCOUNTS OF NlCCOLAO MANDee!

In 1653, when Manucci was fourteen, he ran away from home in Venice and stowed away on a ship bound for Smyrna. On the ship he befriended Henry, Lord Bellomont, who was on bis way to Persia as ambassador of the exiled Charles II. 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 II and not able to attain them in Persia, they were then instructed ta move to the courts of the Mughal Empire. They set joumey to Delhi when, just three days from Agra, Bellomont fell ill and died. Manucci went on to Delhi and obtained an introduction ta Shâhjahân's eldest son Dara who enlisted mm in bis service as an artiUeryman. Dara's brother, Aurangzeb, revolted against their father and marched on ta Agra. He defeated both Dara and Shâhjahân. Manucci, who had marched with Dara, made bis way to Delhi and then to Lahore where Dara was raising a new army. Dara, losing again, was executed by Aurangzeb. "Retuming with • other European artillerymen ta Delhi, [Manucci] refused service with Aurangzeb 20 because ofhis great dislike for that Emperor. From that time he tells his own story, and • that ofthe reign ofAurangzeb (Manucci 1957, p. 13)." Manucci began his descriptions of Delhi with ilS construction. Shâhjahânâbâd was a city in the shape ofan uimperfect moon" with twelve gates, and the oider cities of Delhi fonning 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 Agra and Lahore. The chief bazaars were those that corresponded with the streets leading to the fortress and capped with the city's two primary gales (Manucci 1989, p. L78). Towards the east was the Royal Palace around which a number of nobles had built their palaces. A number ofother houses with thatched roofs surrounded these, which according to Manucci were UhighLy decorated and commodious inside." The Royal Fortress had "two gates leading into the city, there being a large opell space in the midst. Shahjahan planted two large gardens, one on the north side, the other on the south side, andJor the reason that the river Jamnah does not rise high enough to pennit ofits irrigating these

gardens, Shâhjahân, al a great e.'tpense...constrllcted a deep canaf...one hundred leagues 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 arder in the rest of the city, "should Shâhjahân JaU iLl, everybody would fly to amIs for the defense of their hOllses Jrom the robberies and assaults that wOllld take pLace (Manucci 1989, p. old 232). "

3.4 THE ACCOUNTS OFHARRIETTYTLER [1828-1858]

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, Mes. • Tytler left ber bungalow in Delhi on May Il for the British military encampment on the

2i Ridge. She was Uthe only lady present in camp throughout the whole siege and capture of Delhi (Tytler 1986. p. 197).'· Rer autobiography presented a unique view of • Shâhjahânâbâd.

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 [orry nLiles and reached the city about six in the morning and went to the river gate ofthe Efnperor's palace. calling out from below who the)' were and whal their mission was. The royalfamily immediately gave them pennission to enter, which of course they did. Anybody who has been to Delhi and seen the palace walls from the side ofthe river will have noticed the gate, which leads by a flight ofsteps to the beautiful apartments ofthe Emperor (Tyr/er 1986, p. 119)." • "ln tlze first place there were no men to be seen near Del/li so soon after its fal/... When this cavalcade reached the Golden Temple ofthe Chandni Chowk Hodson called out with a stentorian voice, ~Come out you rascals to he shor', llpon which the

men put up their hands in supplication and said, ~Sahib. JOU promised us our lives. '(Tytler 1986, p. 166)." • "What a pity no one will know hereafter what the home ofthe Emperors ofDelhi was like...in a Little hot-weather sleeping room on the second storey above the present Diwan-i-am, where the King 's mother Itad lived and died. and was now no longer inhabited by anyone (Tyrler 1986, p. 167)."

3.5 THE ACCOUNTS OFCOLONELEDWARDVIBART[MAY 10, 1857]

It was the ~First Station' at Meerut where the native troops of the Bengal Army broke iota open insurrection. The rebellion proceeded to march on to Delhi where Colonel Edward Vibart was a subaltem in one ofthe native regiments in Delhi. Being not • ooly in the city of Delhi, but also at the Delhi garrison, bis accounts were extremely 22 insightful. Although writing fortYyears 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 total population of 160,OOO~ consisting mostly of Muslims. Several hundred Eurasians, native Christians, and a European community (which included missionaries, traders, civil engineers, and govemment clerks) made up the much smaller minority. He described the principal structures within the city as being the Mughal PaJace-Cornplex and the Jumma Mosque, two Muslim buildings of grandeur which ordered the city. He wrote: UAt this period the titu/ar throne of Delhi was occupied by His Majesty, Bahadur Shah, the octogenarian representative ofthe once mighty dynasty of the great Mughal; and here, within the walls ofthis magnificent building, surrounded by deballched and lInscrupulous 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 pounds perannum (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 uimposing" red sandstone walIs

of the Palace. He went on to mention, U 1Jancy there were few cities in [ndia ar this period which could have rivaled the wealth of the bazaars of Delhi, or excelled the manufacturing skill o/its inhabitants (Vibrat 1898, p.6)."

3.6 SHÂHJAHÂNÂBÂD COMPILED FROM TEXTS

The Royal Palace was constructed under the supervision of Makramat Khan, Superintendent of Worb, 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 eastem wall overlooking the river lay the Emperor's apartments. Extending vertically were the baths, Diwan-i-Am, sleeping apartments and the Zenana, fonning a T-shaped arrangement.. Westwards, the two anns at • the top of the T fonned subsidiary courts and buildings whilst northwards, were the 23 gardens, Bayat Bakash (Giver of Life) and the Mehtab Bagh (Garden of the Moon). Adjoining, tms 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).

~IAJOR ARCHITECTURAL ELEl\-IENTS OF THE PALACE·COMPLEX SQAURE MUMTAZ MAHAL HAMAM SAWAN CHATIACHOWK RANG MAHAL MOTI MOSQUE BHADON COURTYARD KHAS MAHAL HlRA MAHAL ZAFAR MAHAL NAQQAR KHANA MUTHAMMAN BURJ SHAH BURJ NAHER-I-BAHISSHT 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 ta the prosperity of the land. Rivers also provided a very convenient option to the MughaIs as a means of trave!. Shâhjahân often traveled along the Jumna from Delhi ta Agra. Boats were always kept ready for this journey on the eastem side of the Royal Complex. Although the postal system was reserved only for Imperial use, city inhabitants devised and 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 [etters, messages and good wishes Jrom friends and acquaintances. Returning, they took back replies, and thus the chain ofcorrespondence continued (Farooquee 1977, p. 160)." Mohallahs provided the social contacts necessary for the upkeep ofsuch a system. • 24 The Indian Mutiny of L857 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 Northem India. The mutinous soldiers were joined within weeks by numerous disaffected groups, all holding grievances against the British. Suppressed by the British, the revoit caused the Company to become a victim of its own economic success. Direct Crown role replaced the East India Company in 1858. In arder to avert any more challenges ta their supremacy on the sub-conùnent, the British re-examined the govemance of their Indian possessions. HThe white garrison was substantially increased; roads driven through the heart of the old bazaars. with the erection of military cantonments and civil stations, imposed a new arder on India's cities. The construction ofa network ofrai/ways, largely completed by the 1870s, firmly subordinated lndia to the commercial and military needs of the British Empire (Metcalfe 1989. p. 55)." 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 Shâhjahânâbâd. ~These changes will be presented in the following chapter anchored by these accounts of the past.

• 2S • PLATE 6

A view of Delhi Wilh the Jumma Masque in the center. A sketch by Prince Alexis Soltykoff from 1857 (Tytler 1981 ).

• • PLATE 7

The Emperor Shah Jahan (Bernier (891).

• • PLATE 8

A part of the PaJace·Complex showing Chandni Chowk meeting the Lahore Gale. Major areas discussed in the • thesis are marked with black dOls (Ehlers (993). • PLATE 9

(A!l(X):(O'

The Zenana (Bernier (891). • • PLATE 10

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

• • PLATE Il

A Princess in the Seraglio (Bernier 1891).

• PLATE 12 •

[slamic insliluilions .ID Shah·~ahanabad around [850 (Ehlers 1993 l. • • PLATE 13

River facing front of the PaJace~Complex (Viban 1898).

• • PLATE 14

~..--_.-:-:~~-"4CI-=

··.-é

Approaching the city from the Bridge ofBoats (Viban 1898).

• • PLATE 15

Englishrncn in front of the Palace-Complex

• • PLATE 16

The Diwan-i-Khass (Begley 1990).

• • PLATE 17

The Diwan-l-Am t s western facnde (Begley 1990).

• • PLATE 18

Eastern facadc of the Naqqar Khana (Bcgley 1990).

• • PLATE 19

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

• CHAPTERIV • BRITISH CHANGES TO THE PALACE-COMPLEX

"What can 1 wnOle...lhe life of Delhi depends on the Fort. Clrandni Chowk. the daily gatherings czr the Jumuna Bridge and the annllal Guifarosizan. Whetl ail these...things are no longer there. how cali Delhi live? Yes there was a city ofthis name in the dominions ofIndia (Ghalib 1970. p. 285)."

The morphology of Shâhjahânâbâd did not drastically change until after the RevoIt. 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 ta come. In the summer of 1857, severa! Hmutinying" regiments converged on Delhi from Meerut, wanting ta 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 maves, guided by an obsession with security, the British changed the very nature of Shâhjahânâbâd's urbanity . This was haw it was done.

Just prior to the Rebellion of 1857 Delhi was still a city the Emperor Shâhjahân would recognize. From a minar in the Jumma Masjid, looking east, the Jumna River still ran aImost parallel to the front of the masque, beyond which Iay 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 desolatioo. Towards the left, on the northem side, rose low mUs which intervened between the city and cantonments. On the south side of the city were the ruins of oid Delhi; the visually conspicuous tombs of Humayun and Safdar Jung being the more prominent, and in the distance, the Qutab Minar.

A visitor ta Delhi in 1845 commented, uThe works ofthe Europeans at Delhi are confined to a magnificent canal, an arsenal...a church, a college and a printing press • (Gupta 1981, p. 16). JI So although the British carried heavy political and military clout in 26 Shâhjahânâbâd 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 waiL Within, plots of land were aIlocated ta noblemen, merchants and people of other professions. Although sorne people did build on property outside Shâhjahânâbâd 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. l). 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 politicai life hinged on the monarch, his court and the Palace-Complex.

In the decades between Bemier's visit and the British conquest in 1803, Shâhjahânâbâd suffered the ravages ofcivil 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 Shâhjahân's time. Masques, temples, bouses, markets, streets, and gardens were aIl 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 Mughal power declined, the responsibilities of the police chief, the kotwal, increased. From his office in Chandni Chowk, he and bis 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 ioto 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 Shâbjahânâbâd 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 27 still recognized. His impressions of a town made up of mud-thatched houses surrounding palatial-abodes had, in the following half-century, changed very liule. Bemier's • impressions were that Delhi was less a town than a collection of rnany villages. This view of Delhi changed very little for European travelers and in his mernoirs, 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 hOLlses within are many ofthem large and high. There are a great number ofmosques. with Itiglt minarets and gilded dames. and above ail are seen a palace. a very high and extensive cluster ofgotltic towers and battlements. and the JU111na Masjeed. tlze largest and handsomest place ofMussulman worship in lndia (Heber 1828. p. 285)."

When the British assumed control of Shâhjahânâbâd in 1803 it had been a customary praetiee, when settling in an existing Indian city, to create their own community. This was usuaJly built outside the local one and was done in the prevailing ideologies of Imperialism...the ordering of difference and strategie 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 fonnation with low population densities, contrasting with the more organic urban forros 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 lïnes. Sorne British residents, however chose to live within the city watls, preferring Daryaganj, a district south of the Palace, or inside the Kashmiri Gate, just north ofthe Palace (Evenson 1989, p. 99).

A description of British "urban-presence" before the Rebellion was given in Colonel Edward Vibart's description ofShâhjahânâbâd at the time. In short, he narrated, "...and in the year 1857 [with al numbered...resident native population ofabout 160,000, the majority being Mahomedans. There were a/so dwelling inside the city, sorne hundreds ofEurasians and native Christians, in addition to a large European community...but the numberofoffficiai Europeans actually resident within the walls was inconsiderable [with

• a fewJ attached to the Arsenal, usually calied the CIMagazine". The Arsenal, or

28 Magazine, rep/ete with vast stores of ammunition and muskets, besides two complete siege trains and innumerabLe field gUIlS, was a/so situated within the Limits of the city • walls, lining the riverfront close to the Cu/cutta Gate, but was not provided with a single European soldier to defend it. Close at hand were the spacious grounds of the Govemnlent Coliege...the Civil Treasury...the Delhi Gazette Press {and} St. James' Church, fronting a large open space adjoining the Cashmere Gate and Main Guard. {ItJ now becomes needful...to give a brief description of the rnilitary cantonments and their relative position to the city of Delhi. These were situated about Mo miles ta ilS north west, and extended for about the sarne distance a/ong the base of an elevated ridge of rocks, which latter, running obliquely to the city walls, formed tlze south eastem boundary in that direction. There were several roads which led from different parts ofthe cantonment towards the city ofDelhi, the two principal ofwhiclt, passing over the crest ofthe ridge, united at a point sorne eight hundred yards below it, and thence proceeded in aimost a straight Line to the city, which it entered by way ofthe Cashmere Gate. On the river side ofthis road, and standing on the banks, was Metcalfe House, the residence of Sir T. Metcalfe, Bart.• at that timejoint magistrate ofDelhi. Farther on. on the sarne side of the road. rigltt Relations up ro the city walls, lay a nurnber of suburban 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 cOlnlnissioner ofDelhi. Notfarfrom Ludlow castle and nearer to the cantonment, was the electric telegraph office. and juS! beyond the [atter... were the assembly rooms and the

shop of Mr. Marshal the principal European merchant at Delhi (Vibrat 1898, p. 3). Il Colonel Vibrat's narrative provided necessary documentation of the British presence in Shâhjahânâbâd. This provides a basis for comparing the changes ta 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 upresumed need for a new policy ofgovemance (Hutchins 1967. p. 79)." British insecurities of being a minority amongst a Native • populous heightened their "vengefuI response" ta the Rebellion. Contrarieties between 29 "Europeansu 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 "effeminated" 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 lndian male was not "properly ordering his home" just as they had not provided the "proper govemance" for their society. Imperialism, thus, would make a much harsher presence within Shâhjahânâbâd'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 Mughai Ernperor, he continued to hold court and attend to the petitions of his subjects in the Audience Hall. He was still the source of favors and lead the faithful at prayers. Qver 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 ofthe opening a/the gate that Ledfrom Selimgarh Fort, opposed by the British and demanded by the King as it would give him easier access to the Jumna on the

east ofthe PaLace (LleweLLyn 1977, p. 34). /1 The court showed great foresight in striving to keep the gate from the Selimgarh Fort open. Not only does this show limited politieal will but a knowledge of how important the role of the Palace-Complex would be in securing the city in case of a "revoIt 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; sorne arriving in brigades, sorne 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 insufficient to invest even a tltird ofthe land side to it; and access to the left bank ofthe Jumna was seule at ail limes peifect/y secure by the bridge ofboats, which was under close/ire ofthe guns in SeLimgurh, and at [east 2,500 yards distant from our nearest battery. It was therefore • impossible to prevent a constant stream ofreinforcements and suppliesIrom pouring Into 30 Delhi, which, by the middle ofAugust, contained within and under ifs walls a force of • more than 30,000 men (BaIl, p. 474)." European troops in 1828 were moved out of the city to the cantonment on the uRidge", and only native Indian soldiers were left within the city walls. In 1851 the main Arsenal in Delhi was shifted from the city ta the banks of the river, responding to local petitions and Napier, who feared of an accidentaI explosion. A small magazine, however, was retained between the Kashmiri Gate and the Palace and was, "rep/ete with vast stores of ammunition and muskets, [along with/ two complete siege trains and innumerable field guns, 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 officiais 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 triaI, was exiled to Bunna with bis many dependents tumed out of the Palace-Complex. These people tumed to the mohallahs and back alleys of the city to seek refuge. Mohallahs historica11y 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 ofthe Royal family. These were used to embellish the main axes ofthe city. Behind these, sites were allocated to other important members ofthe court/or their mansions. Their precise location and design, however, was not part ofthe grand aesthetic scheme. Around these mansions, in tum, were built the clay and thatch huts ofthe rest ofthe population, most ofwhom depended on the nobles for their patronage. This arrangement formed the basis for a system ofnwhallahs (Noe 1981, p. 14). " The British realized the security risk mohallahs posed and demolished many ofthe gates which would have sealed mohallahs off in sign oftrouble. The army moved ioto the

Fort7 tore down many of the palaces and constructed military barracks. UMany houses, shops, public buildings and the beautiful Akharabadi Mosque were destroyed in the • process, and the organic Link between the palace and the city was broken (Ehlers 1993, p.

31 39). " This was strategically important as the Palace-Cornplex had proved ta 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 waIls and the Palace-Complex. They aIso attempted to raise money to support the ranks ofMughal empathizers. Bahadur 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 tlze 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". Shâhjahânâbâd was then made a "constituent" of the Punjab, of which Lahore was the capital. uLess than twenty years after the Rising of 1857, Delhi was a changed city; entered froln the railway-station rather than by boat from the northem Kashmiri Gate, the ltaliante arches ofthe railway station and the wide avenue of Queens Raad made it difftcult to visualize the crowded mohallahs that they had displaced (Ehlers 1993, p. 40). "

Control of mohallahs, especially around the Palace-Complex, were decisive in the subjugation ofShâhjahânâbâd. 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 ofnarrow lanes crookedly piercing through masses ofLafty 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 Kashmiri Gate and proceeded past the Moree bastions and the Kabul Gate they switched strategies from one of uhead-on assault" to one of "secure and destroy". This proved ideal for swarming the mohallahs and effectively neutralizing the city. The Palace-Complex, along with the Jumma Mosque and Selimgarh, the other bastions of native control, could not hold-up without the support of these surrounding mohallahs. Colonel Edward Viban recorded the modus operandi. "The engineers would first break through the wall ofa house, which we at once proceeded to • occupy, and then carrying sand-bags to the top ofthe roofwould construct a parapet, , 32 from hehind which a covering fire was kept up on the next house to he taken (Vibart • 1898, p. 143)."

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

the town, they killed the helpless...and hltmed holtses...Hordes of H nzen and women, commoners and noblenzen, pOltred out of Delhi [rom the three gates and took shelter in small communities and tombs olttside tlze city (Ghalib 1970. p. 40). " 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 mast likely lead Lieutenant Hodson to shoot the Emperor's sons, at Chandni Chowk, on axis with the Palace­ Complex. Captured, hiding at Humayun' s tomb 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 [orcibly on entering the great city of Delhi, only a few months aga before so crowded, was chat Delhi was appalling. Ali you could

see was empty houses where the household hearths had ceased to hum , and not a living the creature, except now and then a starved cat, would show itself, and empty cages were to he seen here and there with their once·beloved occupants laid dead below (Tytler 1986, p. 164)." Every week hundreds of people were routed out of Shâhjahânâbâd.

General Burn had said CI Delhi is nearly cleared ofits inhabitants.../ slzalliet no one back with out a parwana setting forth who he is...AIl men allowed to retum 1 shall register in the Kotwali (Gupta1981, 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 Burn slowly allowed sorne men, women, and children to retum to the mohallahs...admitting more Hindus than Muslims. GeneraIly, the extent of one bania (trader), one punsaria (shopkeeper) and halwai (sweetmeat seller) were kept per street (Gupta 1981). By January 1858, consent was given to the Hiodus to retum to Delhi while the Punjab government resolved that property of Muslims and of guilty Hindus would he confiscated. The rest of the population were • allowed to re-occupy their houses. Only the Calcutta, Kasbmir and Lahore Gates were 33 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 L977, p. L55). A general pardon was released in November L858, but it was not tiU January 1859 that Muslims were re­ admitted ta the city. Even sa, their houses remained sequestered and many prominent Muslims were still kept under bouse arrest.

This confiscation of property resulted in drastic urban changes in and around the Palace-Complex. The immediate consideration of Uwhat would he done with Shâhjahânâbâd" centered around whether the city would be destroyed or kepl. After much deliberation it was agreed that there was more ta be gained in occupying the city than in destroying il. Occupation, however, had already begun. The army procured many buildings within the city, amidst others, the palace of Ahmad Ali Khan, Khan Mohammad's house, the Jumma Masque, the Ghaziuddin Madrasa (weekly musha'aras had been held here), the Idgah, and most importantly the Palace-Complex itself. Between 1858 and 1859 eighty-six houses and lor 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 fol1ows (Gupta 1981, p. 31­ 32): 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 aIl}. Plots belonging to Nawab Wazir were in: Labari Gate, Turkman Gate. Hauz Qazi. Faiz Bazaar. Chandni Chowk, Bhojla Pahari [35 lots in ail]. Plots belonging to the rolen ofBallabgarh and Jhajjar were in: Daryaganj and Faiz Bazaar

[As the scope ofthis 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 faU within these parameters. Therefore, of the eleven districts mentioned, only four falI within the scope of this thesis, these are: Faiz Bazaar, Dariba, Chandni Chowk, and • Daryaganj.] 34 The post-1857 military and civilian positions were now reversed from what they • had been. It was decided ta station the European traops within Daryaganj and the Palace­ Complex and sorne outside the city-wall in Hindu Rao's house. "The Palace and the Jumma Masjeed were occupied as quarters by the Punjab and Ghoorka regiments with a few English troops; the rest were quartered in various parts ofthe city. The houses ofNIr. Skinner and Mr. Beresford....were taken by the principal officers as quarters (Mintum

1858, p.277). " A main military concem was where to position the H new" cantonment. An area between the Palace and the Kashmiri Gate was thought desirable and was held on ta by the army until 1873. The actual acea decided upon was the Palace-Complex. For security reasans, a four-hundred and fiftYyard arc from the Fort was cleared. Most major masques were canfiscated and used for secular purposes or guarded with sentries. "Tite mosque was, however, used as a storeholtse for years...the great bronze central gate is never allawed to be opened. except by permission (Princep 1879, p. 22)." Within the Fart, 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 gale.

British changes to the Palace-Camplex and the surrounding property carried with it a particular strategy and consequence. The Mughal Residence was not just a palatial abode but intrinsically linked ta the urbanity of Shâhjahânâbâd. 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 laoked at in the following chapter.

• 35 • PLATE 20

The Jumma Mosque (Vihan 1898).

• • PLATE 21

View ofthe Jumma Masque (Gupta (981).

• • PLATE 22

The Fatehpun.Mosque (Gupta (981).

• • PLATE 23

The facadc of a house on Chandni Chowk (Gupla 19R 1).

• • PLATE 24

The courtyard of a house in Shahjahanabad (Gupta 1981).

• • PLATE 25

The elevated gateway ofthe Jumma Mosque (Begley 1990).

• • PLATE 26

The British Camp during the Seige (Viban (889).

• • PLATE 27

,- , -­ mll~ -"

/ ..... 1 R4U'" \ L""II'\c' \

" J ...... '--_/ III Lll." tUl'rllm" l;..rdl'n..

RUtn!'> ùt An":ll"nt Delhi • Map of Delhi showing the British encampment in 1857 during the Scige (Tytlcr 1986). CHAPTERV • 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 Urationale" and Uliterature review" floored in Chapter One will govem the line of inquiry. The control of Palace-Complex was pivotai in the siege of Delhi. Not ooly would it provide a symbolic transfer of power but, strategically, wouId allow control of the eotire city.

Physically and economically, Shâhjahânâhâd 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 incornes dependent on the arrogation of a substantial percentage from the agriculturaI surplus. These were taken from landowners, the jagirdars, who in tum claimed a large portion of the peasant's surplus in the foern of land revenue. These jagirdars, themselves, would live in the city, with their own household and military retinue. How the Mughal ruling eHte spent their share of the agricultural surplus affected the entire economy and thus the city's development. Of tbis, Ua substantial part ofthe incorne ofthe emperor and nobles was spent on craft goads. 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 surplus obtained from the country was largely in the form of raw material far manufactures, with a mllch smaller part (in terms oftotal vaille) consllmed as foad and fodder (Maosvi 1987, p. 272)." In such hierarchies the urban population was very dependent on the ruling elite for a stable economy. This was upheld by the fact that forty­

percent of the ruling Mughal class t incorne, and one-tenth that of the jagirdar's incorne was set aside for urban craft production. In addition, seventeen-percent of the ruling class • incorne went directly to maintain unproductive labor (Moosvi 1987, p. 301,307).

36 • These economic dependencies have physical attributes when it cornes to the planning of cities. It made sense here that the main strategy when planning Shâhjahânâbâd would be to build the Palace-Complex, a main tharoughfare, and a royal masque. 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 aIso attained from distant markets. Shâhjahânâbâd, consequently, evolved as a city of disparities. On a macro-Ievel, this relationship was seen between the Palace­ Complex and the rest of the city; or on a micro-Ievel, 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 ofthe Mansebdars, or petty Omrahs, officers ofjustice, rich merchants, and others; many of whü:h 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 theln having courts and gardens, being commodious inside and contailling good fumiture. The thatched roofis supponed by a layer oflong handsome, and strong canes, and tlze clay walls are covered witJz a fine white lime. lntermixed with these different Izouses is an immense number ofsmaller ones, bullt ofmud and thatched with straw, in whiclt lodge the common troopers, and ail that vast multitude of servants and camp-followers who

follow the court and the army (Bernier 1891, p. 246). t' Urbanization thus, in Shâhjahânâbâd, immediately corresponded with the physical presence and concentration ofthe ruIing nobility in conjunction with their dependents. This was what made the city.

As described in mast 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 raIe in ordering Shâhjahânâbâd. Although the outcome of 1857 sealed Delhi's fate, the city's deterioration had begun decades earHer 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 economically

37 sustained the rest of the city. The royal funds kept it a clean and hygienic city. "The gout, the stone, the complaints in the kidneys, catarrhs and quartan agues are nearly unknown; • and persons who arrive in the country afflicted with any ofthese disorders, as was the case with me, soon experience a complete cure...rhere is great enjoymellt of health (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 Govemment wanted to build a health dispensary the local population was approached to make the donations. "As against nearly Rs 10,000 Jrom local subscriptions, the Govemment 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 moming 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 tbis 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 ofthe Pontneuf, five or six feet high and four broad. Bordering the divan are closed arcades, which run up the whole way in the form ofgates. It is upon this long divan that ail the collectors of the market-dues and other petty officers exercise their functions without being incommoded by the horses or people that pass in the street below (Bernier 1891, p. 257)." Shâhjahânâbâd thrived on this complementarity with the Palace-Complex. When the traveler Minturn wrote, "the royal family received regttlarly 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 Khas...The royal family were protected in the enjoyment o/their throne, honors, and revenues (Mintum 1858, p. 241)", he could not he further from the truth. The very "allowance" Mintburn thinks could maintain astate 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 oftheir earnings for the city. With the British administrative takeover, jagirdars • carried no such responsibility. Even with such severely reduced powers, the Palace- 38 Complex still attracted insurgent forces as a symbolic and strategie rallying point. Control of the Complex meant, of course, the control of Delhi. The rebels from Meerut went

• directly, H ••• the river gate of the Emperor's palace, caLling out from below who they to were and what their mission was. The royal family immediately gave them permission to enter, whiclt ofcourse they did. [Anybody who has ever been ta Delhi and seen the palace walls from the side ofthe river will have noticed the gate, wJzich leads by a flight ofsteps

tD the beautiful apartments of the Emperor] (Tytler 1986, p. 118)." It was here the rebellion was planned and carried out.

After re-taking Delhi the British realized the strategie mistake in allowing limited­ functionality of the Palace-Complex. Immediate solutions were military occupation and tuming 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 ofShah Jehan's Line is again present in the throne-roonr ofhis empire. He is a mean looking man, plainly dressed, crouched upon a native bedstead, and smoking a hookah. Before him, at a table, sir a row ofofficers 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(Mintum 1858, p. 242). " Such symbolic acts of power took place with great regularity, a British attempt at fonning a govemance far different from that which had been exercised before. A formal system wouId now sustain the confonnity ofcolonial rule and aH traces of past allegiances were to be aecounted. "Three ofthe Princes...these sciolls ofroyalty were brought to tire city in a common bullock-cart, and throlvn into an open sewer near the Kotwalee...[where} a ga[[ows was erected...They lay open and exposed for any one that liked to see and take a lesson (Mintum 1858, p. 277, 279J. "

Even with the military occupation of the Place-Complex, the desecration of the Jumma 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 39 belonging to suspect individuaIs to people who had liquid cash. Canning also proposed • that uconfiscated 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 fiftYyard radius, would be secured by people who would be loyal to the British Crown. By stoking such land speculation the British govemment would aIso 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, "{t}hese ticket holders...had (alreadyJ beeome millionaires, by large scale purehases at a lime when the priee of land in Delhi had reached an ali-time low...(Gupta 1981, p. 30). "

Due to real-estate acquiring a market value, unheard of during Mughal times, social status no longer corresponded with incorne 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 retuming to Delhi after its capture, Harriet TytIer 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 [eft. The u[flort itself became a European ghetto, in contrast to the seulement in the Civil Lines. A painting of 1868 shows English children gambolling self-consciously, with govemesses in tow, against tlte incongruous background of the Red Fort buildings (Gupta 1981, p. 57)." Indians, after paying an entrance fee, were allowed to attend the Gora 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 Daryaganj. Ail tms provided the necessary buffer for disrupting the organic Unk between Palace and city. • 40 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 mohaIlahs. 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, uMunicipalities shall raise (in any manner they decide) ftmds for the police and for conservancy and such other ftlnds as the members may lhink fit ta expend on the works of improvement, education and other locaL abjects; and the cast of the Municipal Police shall he a first charge on aU suchfunds (Gupta 1981, p. 70)." Mohallahs 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 ta 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 \Vas 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 mohallahs were inoperable as independent ufiefdoms" and needed hierarchical urbanization. This had been provided by the Palace­ Complex and its extensions, Chandni Chowk and the Jumma Mosque...of which ail 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 tbis hierarchy, masques became prime British targets as they too represented extensions of the Palace­ • Complex. They had always played important roles in maintaining political, economic and 41 religious affiliations (Ehlers 1993, p. 47). Mosques. which provided mohallahs a point of • reference, were occupied primarily to reduce native subjects to a manageable arder. AMOUNT LEFT WITH PEASANTS 4,903,257,230 RURAL EXPENDlTURE of landowners 156,433,1376 RURAL EXPENDITURE from revenue payrnents 1,018,368,809 RURAL EXPENDITURE by sub-assignees 448,018,117 TOTAL 79,339,755,32

This table shows the total amount of revenue Icft in the rural sector. The amounts are in dams which were a form of Mughal currency. FortYdams went to a silver rupee. One silver rupee fetched a muhr, which was the equivalent to 169 grains of gold. The amount (hat went into the Mughal treasury in the fiscal year 1595-6 was estimated at 220501600 dams or 103.513,251 grains of gold (Moosvi 1987, p. 199, 303).

AMOUNT SPENT ON WAGES out of the incorne of the Mughals 1,424,470,656 URBAN WAGES out ofthe wages of the landowners and rural potentales 75.906.401 URBAN labor-share from expenditure by subassignees 18,162,897 URBAN labor-share from expenditure of incorne 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 yicld 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).

Shâhjahânâbâd changed from primarily a residential city, ardered by the Palace­ Camplex ta a commercial city ordered by commercialism. AlI texts cited in the thesis Iocated the Mughal Residence as the main ordering element. Once the Palace-Complex was accupied 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, sIums, and health problerns. A city which previously traded anly ta sustain a symbiotic relationship between the general population and the resident nobility was now becoming a hub of British Indiats economy. Crime went up as a consequence. In the 1860s the Delhi Municipality spent seventy-five percent of its incorne 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, far instance, which had been brightly lit by kerosene lamps 42 • before the Revoit, were now lit by dim oil lamps. The cosmopolitanism that had existed in Shâhjahânâbâd 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 Coci. If ooly the problem was conceptual. The poet

Ghalib summed it up in saying, IfWe had onLy one thing Left; the wish to reconstrllct the

city; everything eise was plundered (Ghalib 1970, p. 228). tJ

• 43 • PLATE 28

Bahadur Shah (Tytler 1986).

• • PLATE 29

Humayun 's Tomb where Bahadur Shah was caplured. hiding wilh his family. from the British (Vibart 1989).

• • PLATE 30

Bahadur Shah in exile. Bunna. 1858 (Worswick 1976).

• • PLATE 31

U Ghalib t the "patron poet ofDelhi (Gupta 1981).

• • PLATE 32

Charles Ball's painting of the British attacking a rcbel cavnlry (Tytlcr 1986).

• • PLATE 33

Photograph ofthe KashmirGate blown up during the British assault of the city on September 14, 1857 (Tytler 1986).

• • PLATE 34

A public hanging of Sepoys (Worswick 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 Palace-Complex. The black dOl marks the Meena bazaar which was lurncd inlo the Ganl Bazaar by the British (Saha 1995). • • PLATE3?

Mup showing main districts ofShahjahanabad (Ehlcrs 1993).

• CHAPTERVI • PHYSICAL AND SYMBOLIC PRESENCE

Previous chapters looked at Shâhjahânâbâd 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 he reduced to any one solitary and static conclusion.

This chapter brings around the tbesis, one full circ1e, ta those very concepts that are crucial to understanding the urban changes which took place in Delhi. The descriptions given by travelers/writers concur about the physical presence the Palace­ Complex carried within the city. This, however, need not he corroborated by historical accounts. Any map of the city will show the Place-Complex taking up a tmrrl of the walled area. This speaks of a physical presence. The same can be said of the two major Palace-Complex extensions, the Jumma Masque and Chandni Chowk. The Jumma Mosque was the Mughal religions 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 Jumma Masque 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 ta 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 hanter of the city. Further extrapolations from the Shâbjahânâbâd map • yield three basic characteristics evident in most Mughal: Il[ l J Very specifie city- 44 hinterland relationships of a rent-capitalist nature. [2J Spatial socio-economic and political impacts ofinstitutions. and [3J A historically developed and persisting central • place system ofdominance (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 strategie or symbolic in nature.

What deterrnined if British changes were strategie or symbolie? Shâhjahânâbâd 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 earHer chapter, had grown, over the years from the urban components of the Mughal court. UmbilicaIlyattached, these two halves functioned in unison and although the two reaIms 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 eHte. For instance, royal processions were carried through Chandni Chowk, public hearings were heId 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 rituaIs used to reaffrrm and renew vitaI client-patron relationships. The initial query of what detennined British alterations as being strategie or symbolic~ then depended on the area in question. Consequently, changes to a mahallah drastically differed ta thase changes at Chandni Chowk. Mohallahs contained streets which were Ushort~ narrow, and irregular, andfilll ofwindings and corners (Bernier 1891, 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 moballahs entailed violating this sense of security and community; a strategie option taken by the British. They tore down the gates, got cid of the chowlcidari system, and • oceupied Many identity giving institutions, such as masques, which were quintessential in 4S 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 reaIms of the Palace-Complexe

Symbolic changes made to the Palace-Complex and its extensions did not necessarily entail physical alterations. The MughaJs 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 kotwali was situated. When entering the city the Emperor ceremoniously marched up Chandni Chowk to the Palace-Complexe 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 weIl. 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 stoad further away between a silver and a waoden railing. Nine horses were, positioned behind the waoden railing behind which were four elephants and severa! soIdiers (Manucci 1989, p.89). As such, durbars maintained very weIl established roIes for the relative placement of people and abjects (Nezar 1992, p. 86). This fixed spatial arder of the durbar represented one's status to the roler, closer to the persan of the roler the higher one's status. Narmally, the Emperor sat elevated from all around him and upon entering the durbar, an individual wauld prostate himself whilst saluting or touching their head in varions manners. Symbolically, the saluter had placed bis head, the sentient perch of an individual, into the hand of submissiveness, presenting it to the Mughal Emperor as a gift (Cahn 1983). For the

Mughals, Ifthese rilual presentations constituted a relationship between the giver and the receiver, and were not understood as simply as an exchange ofgoods and valuables. The khelat was a symboL ofthe idea ofcontinllity 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 whic1J he is the incarnation...incorporating into his body...the persons ofthose who share • his rule. Those thus incorporated were notjust servants ofthe king, but part ofhim, just 46 as the eye is the mainfunction ofsight, and the ear in the realm ofhearing (Nezar 1992.

p. 86). Il British awareness of these symbolic covenants was why Bahadur Shah and bis • family were marehed through the Lahore Gate upon their capture at Humayun's tomb. Logistically it made sense to bring them thraugh the Delhi Gate but symbolicaUy the Lahare Gate had far deeper palitical implications. Controlling tbis strip was unlike tearing down gates, as in the mohallahs surrounding the Palace-Camplex, but was an aet 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 L857, ta take charge of usymbol 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 battie and maintain the Cantanment'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 fall ioto rebel hands. Tytler wrote at the

time, IlIt appears young Willoughby, a young gllnner ofthe artillery who had just joined us ar Delhi. saw the necessity ofnor letting our small arms and powderfaIl into the hands

of the mutineers, sa he decided to blow up the magazine (Tyrler 1986. p. 127). fi The transfer ofthe Cantonment to the Palace-Complex heralded a change in attitudes. Control, like ofthe 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 Ioeals to follow. The British erased all rituaI/ceremonial ties to the architectural fabric that the Iocals might have construed with the Mughals. AlI connections to the Palace-Complex were severed. Expeetations that the people be bound to them, as in the past with the Mughal Emperors, were categorically implicit. Power was now being Usituated and exercised at the level of life, the spec;es, the race. and the large scale

phenomena of[the} population (Bernauer 1990, p. 176). ft • 47 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-~Iasjid as a bakery, tuming the Audience Hall into a lodging for General Wilson, or establishing a cantonment within the UFort". Many of these acts did function on strategie levels as weIl. Moving into Shâhjahânâbâd 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 strategie planning 50 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. Artieles in the Lahore Chronicle in May 1858 stated,

lithat the destruction ofthe city would be a wise measure, symbolic ofthe invincibility of British power (Gupta 1981, p. 26)." But what prevailed was a decision ofthe Secretary of

State who agreed with John Lawrence, a senior govemment official at the time, Ilthat the political objectives to be gained by destroying the Palace will he gained by occupying it

(Gupta 1981, p. 26). tI Not ooly 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 eleared out in front of them titled, Champs de Mars.

With the Mughal Residence converted ioto a cantonment, Delhi's beneficiary was compelled to bring the two remaining Palace-Complex extensions under control. The tango orchestrated between Ustrategy and symbolism" was at its finest with the British ordination over bath Jumma Masque and Chandni Chowk. Being religious and economic • extensions of the Mughal royalty, they were constructed in a becoming manner. The 48 Jumma Mosque presented the traveler with an impressive view when entering Delhi. Princep wrote, at the time, u{t]he lumma Musjid...has frequelltly been described; but no • one in writing can convey the impressions it produces on the artistic mind (Prin cep 1879, p.22)." As with any building connected ta Mughal sovereignty, the British stopped all public access ta the Jumma Mosque and the caU to prayer prohibited from its minarets. Chandni Chowk was then made to supplement these urban voids created by the non­ functioning Mosque and Palace-Complexe 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 proud Queen's Raad, and the British statelnents of faith...the neogothic raillvay station and the classical façade ofthe municipal town hall, a colonial copy of the standard 'centre' of cities in Victorian Britain (Gupta 1981, p. 56J. " 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 Jumma Mosque...a stilled Ucall-to-prayer" replaced with a western notion of time.

Shâhjahânâbâd was a city of incredible complexity. Historical antecedents pinned the PaJace-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 successfully on a Iimited oligarichal trade. With British alterations, however, Delhi, beginning as a Mughal capital, swelled into the seventh largest city in British India by 1891, the wealthiest town in the Punjab by 1896, and had the largest railway junction in Iowa by the beginning of the twentieth century (Gupta 1981, p. 45). These resulting statistics are not important to the scope ofthis thesis. Alterations were used as a vehicle highlighting aspects of Shâhjahânâbâd's urbanity in • relation to the salient features ofthe Palace-Complex. 49 • PLATE 38

Shah Jahan scatcd in (he Diwan-i-Khas. Compare (his (0 Plate 40 during British ~ccupation (Bcgley 1990).

• • PLATE 39

The Diwan~i·Khas emplied of ilS Mughal pomp and and occupied by the British. Compare to the Mughal miniature Wilh Shah Juhan on Plate 38 (Vibrat 1898).

• • PLATE 40

Sketch ofthe Audience Hall as the quarters torGeneml Wilson and his staff. Compare this to Plate 38 (Tytler 1986).

• • PLATE 41

Delhi in 1873. The eastem section was taken over by the Britsh and used as a cantonrncnt (sec Plate 35). A buffer lone W3S maintaincd by clearing the neighborhoods in front ofthe Fon and a milroad tmck sliced through the nonh • with the Town Hall (markcd by a white dot on the map) the seat of a ncw government CEvenson (989). • PLATE 42

The Clock liower (Gupta (981).

• • PLATE 43

...

A view of Chandni Chowk. post-1857 (Gupta 1981).

• • PLATE 44

Chandni Chowk and the Jumma Mosque (Gupta 19R 1).

• • PLATE 45

...... ~i:-~~.~=.~~=. 'r'~= ~ ~~~~~·~·1····· .. '.. . ~. "...... e: .. .: . . :." • ~:.Sil :;' .J-_~Ia--' 1 ~ : .' 1 .•,, . . ; . .;

LEGEND

RF Red Fort JM Jorna Masjid ca C1"auri Bazaa" KS Khas Baza or HI( Haus Kazi FB Faiz Sazaar AM Akborabadi MasJid FM fa"'"puri Masjid ce Cl"Iondni ChOWk 8B 8eqllHto-Baqh S ~e"ai •••• canols • •• uncJ...;rOl'd canals C9Gna.U)

A map showing the gcometric rclationship belwccn the Palace-Complex and ilS two public extensions. the Iumma Masquc and Chandni Chowk. Bath cxtensions commandcd an urban heirJrchy which the British • aucmpted to control. The measurcmenlS arc in "gauz" [one gauz is roughly one yard] (Saha 1995). • PLATE 46

Map of the Jumma Masque showing an urban realtionship hc­ • (wecn the mohallahs. Sec Plates 4 and 5 (Ehlcrs 1993). OmLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Lughod, 1. ((987). The Islamic eity: Historie myth, Islamic essence, and • contemporary relevance. International Journal of Middle East Studies 19, pp. 155-176.

Alsayyed, N. (Ed.) (1992). Fonns ofdominance. London: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

BalI, C. (?). The history ofthe Indian mutiny. London, New York: The London Printing and Publishing Company Limited.

Banga, I. (Ed.) . (1991). The city in Indian history. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Begley, W., Desai, Z., Khan, 1. (Ed.) (1990). The Shah Jehan Nama of[nayat Khan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Berauer,1. (1990). Michel Foucaulfsforce offlight. London: Humanities Press.

Bernier, F. (translation: (891). Travels in the mogul empire AD 1656-1668. Delhi: S. Chand &Co.

Bhattacharya, V. (1977). The saga ofDelhi. New Delhi: Metro Book Co. Ltd.

Blake, S. (1991). Shahjahanabad. Cambridge: University Press.

Chopra, P. (1970). Delhi: History and places ofinterest. Delhi: Delhi Administration.

Cohn, B. (1983). The invention oftradition. Cambridge: University Press.

Idem (1976). Life and letters under the mughals. New Delhi: Asbajanak Publications.

DalrympIe, W. (1994). City ofdjinns. London: Flamingo.

Ehlars, E. (1991). The imperial Islamic city: 19lf1 century Shâhjahânâbâd 1 old Delhi. Environmental Design (Proceedings of the 7th International Convention of the Islamic Environmental Design Research Center in Rome), July 1991.

Ehlers, E., Krafft, T. (Ed.) (1993). Shâhjahânâbâd / old Delhi: Traditional and colonial change. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart.

Embree, A. (Ed.) (1963). 1857 in India : Mutiny or War oflndependence. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company. • Evenson, N. (1989).The Indian metropolis. New Haven: Yale University Press 50 Farooque, A.K. (1977). Roads and communications in mughaL India. New Delhi: lAD • Oriental Series. Fonseca, R. (1971). The walled city of old Delhi. Ekistics 182, pp. 72 - 80.

Fryckenberg, R. (Ed.) (1986). Delhi through the ages: Essays in urban history, culture, and society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Fusfeld, W. (1981). The shaping of sufi leadership in Delhi: The Naqshbandiyya Mujaddidyya, 1750-1920.

Ghalib, M. (trans. Faruqi, K.) (1970). Dastanbuy. New Delhi.

Germeraad, P. (1990). Open spaces in hu/non settlements: The tesson fram the [slamic tradition. Netherlands: H. van Leewen.

Guha, O. (1984). Shâhjahânâbâd and New Delhi: A comparative anaLysis ofurbanform and pattern (Masters thesis, MeGill University, 1983).

Gupta, N. (1981). Delhi between two elnpires, 1803-1931 : Society, government and urban growth. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Idem (1989). What is Islamic about a city? Sorne comparative reflections. Proceedings ofthe International Conference on Urbanism in Islam, Oct. 22-28, l, pp. 194-217.

Hardy, P. (1972). The muslims ofBritish India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heber, R. (1828). Narrative ofajoumey through the upper provinces ofIndia. London.

Hutchins, F. (1967). The illusion ofpermanence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Irving, R. (1981). Indian summer. Yale: Yale University Press.

Kabbani, R. (1986). Europe 1 s myths ofthe 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 ofDelhi. London: MacDonald and Jane's.

Manucci, N. (ed. Edwards, M.)(1957). Memoirs of the mogul court. London: Folio • Society. SI Manucci, N. (trans. William, 1.)(1989). Storia do magoT. Delhi: Mehra Offset Press. • Mathur, N. (1968). Redfort and mughallife. New Delhi: Caxton Press Ltd. Metcalfe, T. (1989). An imperiaL vision. Berkeley: University ofCalifomia Press.

Idem (1997). Ideologies ofthe Raj. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mintum, R. (1858). From New York to Delhi by way of Rio de Janeiro, AustraJia and China. New York: O. Appleton & Co.

Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Naqvi, H. (1972). Urbanization and urban centres under the great Mughals. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.

Noe, s. (1981). Old Lahore and old Delhi: Variations on a Mughal therne. Urbanism Past and Present, 6(2), pp. 1-19.

Pearson, M. (Ed.) (1985). Legitimacy and symbols : The South Asian writings of F. W Buckler. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Prinsep, C. (1879). ImperiaL India. London: Chapman and Hall.

Ribeiro, E. (1988). Planning initiatives with particular reference to the walled city of Delhi. Space, 3(2-3), pp. 58-68.

Said, E. (1979). OrientaLism. New York: Random House [nc.

Saba, S. (1995). Conservation based development ofShâhjahânâbâd.o The historic capital city ofIndia. UNCRD Repon Series No. 9.

Sen, S. (1957). Eighreenfifty-seven. Delhi: Sree Sarawaty Press Ltd.

Singh, P., Dhamija, R. (1989). Delhi the deepening urban crisis. Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Spear, P. (1951). Twilight afthe Mughals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spear, T. (1994). Delhi: lrs monuments and !zistory. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Tytler, H. (Ed. Sattin, A.) (1986). An Englishwoman in India.o The memoirs ofHarriet Tytler 1828-1858. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Vibart, E. (1898). The sepoy mutiny: As seen bya subaltem. London: Smith, EIder & Co.

52 • Worswick, C. (Ed.) (1976). The last empire. New York City: Aperture Ine. Wilberforee, R. (1895). An unrecorded chapter ofthe lndian mutiny. London: Bradbury, Agnew & Co.

Winks, R. (Ed.) (1963). British imperialism: Gold, God. glory. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.

Yadav, K. (1980). Delhi in 1857 : The trial of Bahadiir Shah. Gurganon, Haryana: Academie Press.

• 53