The article discusses the imposition of European models of architecture and urban planning within India, as well as the negotiations and compromises that took place in shaping colonial urbanism. Insights from multiple analytical and theoretical frameworks are used in the article, and it draws from post-structuralism and theories of dependent urbanism to provide an explanation for imposition architecture and urban planning as instruments of domination, subjugation, and control, and the discourses that accompanied such practices. Postcolonial theory provides the analytical inspiration for explaining the resistance offered by the indigenous population against the domination, subjugation, control and negotiations and compromises that took place in shaping colonial urbanism. Insights of postcolonial theory are also used for discourse analysis carried out in the article. Drawing from theories of dependent urbanism, the article examines how the changing nature of the international political and economic landscape, and internal political situation, as well as motives for colonization, influenced the European settlement patterns.
For a detailed discussion of these theories and treatises and see, Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge (New York: Pantheon, [1969] 1972); Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, [1975] 1979); Anthony D. King, Colonial Urban Development: Culture, Social Power and Environment (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1976); Manuel Castells, The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach (London: Edward Arnold, 1977); Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978); Anthony D. King, ‘‘Colonialism, and the Development of the Modern South Asian City: Theoretical Considerations,’’ in The City in South Asia: Pre-Modern and Modern, ed. Kenneth Ballhatchet and John Harrison (London: Curzon Press, 1980); Anthony D. King, ‘‘Exporting Planning: The Colonial and Neo-Colonial Experience,’’ in Shaping an Urban World: Planning in the Twentieth Century, ed. Gordon E. Cherry (New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1980); Karlis Racevskis, Michel Foucault and the Subversion of Intellect (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983); Paul Rabinow, French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment (Boston: MIT Press, 1989); Anthony D. King, ‘‘Colonialism, Urbanism and the Capitalist World Economy: An Introduction,’’ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 13, no. 1 (1989): 1-18; Anthony D. King, Global Cities: Post-Imperialism and the Internationalization of London (London: Routledge, 1990); Anthony D. King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy: Cultural and Spatial Foundations of the World Urban System (London: Routledge, 1990); Gwendolyn Wright, The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); and Nezar AlSayyad, ‘‘Urbanism and the Dominance Equation: Reflections on Colonialism and National Identity,’’ in Forms of Dominance: On the Architecture and Urbanism of the Colonial Enterprise, ed. Nezar AlSayyad (Aldershot: Avebury, 1992).
2.
Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf, A Concise History of India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
3.
See for example, Ranajit Guha, ed. Subaltern Studies: Writings on South Asian History and Society, Vol. I (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981); Partha Chatterjee, ‘‘Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal, 1926-1935,’’ in Subaltern Studies; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘Can the Subaltern Speak? Speculations on Widow Sacrifice,’’ Wedge 7/8, (1985): 120-30; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘The Rani of Sirmur: An Essay in Reading the Archives,’’ History and Theory 24, no. 3 (1985): 247-72; Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism,’’ Critical Inquiry 12, no. 1 (1985): 243-61; Partha Chatterjee, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse? (London: Zed Books, 1986); Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography,’’ in Selected Subaltern Studies; Partha Chatterjee, ‘‘More on Modes of Power and the Peasantry,’’ in Selected Subaltern Studies; Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Post Colonial Histories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993); and Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994).
4.
Racevskis, Michel Foucault and the Subversion of Intellect, 16.
5.
Said, Orientalism.
6.
Bart Moore-Gilbert, ‘‘Edward Said: Orientalism and Beyond,’’ in Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, and Politics, ed. Bart Moore-Gilbert (London: Verso, 1997).
7.
Said, Orientalism.
8.
Said, Orientalism, 3.
9.
Ibid.
10.
There have been various attempts to relate Orientalism to colonial architecture both explicitly and implicitly. Among others see for example, Thomas R. Metcalf, An Imperial Vision: Indian Architecture and Britain’s Raj (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989); and Mark Crinson, Empire Building: Orientalism and Victorian Architecture (London: Routledge, 1996).
11.
Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 216.
12.
For original formulations of dependency and world system theories, see, Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System (London: Academic Press, 1974); Samir Amin, Unequal Development: An Essay on Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976); André Gundar Frank, Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1979); and Immanuel Wallerstein, The Capitalist World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
13.
Among others see for example, T. Mitchell, Colonizing Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Rabinow, French Modern; Wright, The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism; AlSayyad, ed., Forms of Dominance (selected chapters); and Z. Celik, Urban Forms and Colonial Confrontations: Algiers under French Rule (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
14.
Castells, The Urban Question; and King, Colonial Urban Development.
15.
In this terminology, the core is the metropolitan country (namely the colonizer’s country) and the periphery is the colony. The core-periphery relationship was that of exploitation of the periphery by the core, by restricting the main economic function of the colony to production of mineral, agricultural, and other raw materials for export to the core for manufacturing and consumption. Manufactured goods were exported back to the periphery for consumption, with the virtual exclusion of any manufacturing in the periphery. For an overview of the Indian situation, see for example, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, ‘‘Foreign Capital and Economic Development in India: A Schematic View,’’ in Imperialism and Revolution in South Asia, ed. Kathleen Gough and Hari P. Sharma (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973); Hamza Alavi, ‘‘India and the Colonial Mode of Production,’’ Economic and Political Weekly 10, nos. 33-35 (1975): 1235-62; and David Washbrook, ‘‘South Asia, the World System, and World Capitalism,’’ The Journal of Asian Studies 49, no. 3 (1990): 479-508.
16.
King, Colonial Urban Development.
17.
King, ‘‘Colonialism, Urbanism and the Capitalist World Economy;’’ and King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy.
18.
King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy.
19.
This type of settlement is described later.
20.
Bhabha, The Location of Culture.
21.
Bhabha, The Location of Culture, 70.
22.
Chatterjee, The Nation and its Fragments, 10.
23.
Ibid.
24.
Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘The Rani of Sirmur.’’
25.
Suhash Chakravarty, The Raj Syndrome: A Study of Imperial Perceptions (Delhi : Chanakya Publications, 1989), 52.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).
28.
Bhabha, Location of Culture; Moore-Gilbert, ‘‘Gayatri Spivak: The Deconstructive Twist,’’ in Postcolonial Theory.
29.
See for example, Guha, ed., Subaltern Studies; Chatterjee, ‘‘Agrarian Relations and Communalism in Bengal, 1926-1935;’’ Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’’ Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘The Rani of Sirmur;’’ Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism;’’ Guha and Chakravorty Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies; Chakravorty Spivak, ‘‘Subaltern Studies;’’ and Chatterjee, ‘‘More on Modes of Power and the Peasantry.’’
30.
Among others see, S. Raychaudhuri, ‘‘Colonialism: Indigenous Elites and the Transformation of Cities in the Non-Western World: Ahmadabad (Western India), 1890-1947,’’ Modern Asian Studies 35, no. 3 (2001): 667-726; Nihal Perera, ‘‘Indigenizing the Colonial City: Late Nineteenth Century Colombo and its Landscape,’’ Urban Studies 39, no.9 (2002): 1703-21; A. D. King, ‘‘Actually Existing Postcolonialism: Colonial Architecture and Urbanism after the Postcolonial Turn,’’ in Postcolonial Urbanism: South East Asian Cities and Global Processes, ed. Bishop, J. Phillips and W.W. Yeo (London: Routledge, 2003); Anthony King, ‘‘Rethinking Colonialism: An Epilogue,’’ in Forms of Dominance; Jyoti Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities: Negotiating Architecture and Urbanism (London: Routledge, 2005); Swati Chattopadhyay, ‘‘Blurring Boundaries: The Limits of ‘‘White Town’’ in Colonial Calcutta,’’ The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 59, no. 2 (2000): 154-179; Swati Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta: Modernity, Nationalism, and Colonial Uncanny (London: Routledge, 2005); Swati Chattopadhyay, ‘‘The Other Face of Primitive Accumulation: The Garden Houses in British Colonial Bengal,’’ in Colonial Modernities: Building, Dwelling and Architecture in British India and Ceylon, ed. Peter Scriver and Vikramaditya Prakash (Routledge: London, 2007); and Jyoti Hosagrahar, ‘‘Negotiated Modernities: Symbolic Terrains of Housing in Delhi,’’ in Colonial Modernities.
31.
The discussion on early colonial architecture is based on Sten Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850 (New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, [ 1968]1969); and H.R. Tillotson, The Tradition of Indian Architecture: Continuity, Controversy and Change Since 1850 ( New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), unless otherwise stated.
32.
Pratapaditya Pal and Vidya Dehejia, From Merchants to Emperors: British Artists and India, 1757-1930 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986).
33.
Norma Evenson , The Indian Metropolis: A View Towards the West (New Haven: Yale University Press , 1989).
34.
James Kerr.The Land of Ind; or Glimpses of India ( London: Longman, Green, and Company, 1873), 91.
35.
John Archer , ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens; Frameworks for the Growth of Calcutta, 1800-1850,’’City and Society12, no. 1 (2000): 19-54.
36.
Ibid.
37.
Evenson, The Indian Metropolis.
38.
Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta.
39.
John Archer, Colonial Suburbs in South Asia, 1700-1850, and the Spaces of Modernity,’’ in Visions of Suburbia, ed. Roger Silverstone (London: Routledge , 1997); and Archer , ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens.’’
40.
Chattopadhyay, ‘‘The Other Face of Primitive Accumulation.’’
41.
Ibid. Note that the British institutionalized the extraction of revenue from land through the appointment of hereditary revenue officers, known as Zamindars to collect taxes for them.
42.
Ibid.
43.
Mrs. Eliza Fay, Original Letters from India (1779-1815), With Introductory and Terminal Notes by E. M Forster (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1925), 180-81.
44.
Chattopadhyay, ‘‘Blurring Boundaries;’’ and Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta.
45.
Emma Roberts, Scenes and Characteristics of Hindostan with Sketches of Anglo-Indian Society, Vol I (London; WM. H Allen and Company , 1837, 2nd edn), 7.
46.
Kerr, The Land of Ind, 96.
47.
Chattopadhyay, ‘‘Blurring Boundaries;’’ and Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta.
48.
Ibid.
49.
Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850.
50.
Ibid.
51.
Chattopadhyay, ‘‘Blurring Boundaries;’’ and Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta.
52.
Ibid.
53.
Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
54.
Archer, ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens.’’
55.
Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
56.
Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850 and Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
59.
George Viscount Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, in the Years 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1806, Vol. I (London: F. C. and J. Rivington [1809] 1811), 191-192.
60.
Ibid, 192.
61.
The discussion on Serampore is based on Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850, unless otherwise stated. The neighboring Europeans were the Portuguese in Bandel, the Dutch in Chinsura, the French Chandernagore, and the British in Calcutta.
62.
Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, in the Years 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1806, Vol. I, 192. Note that chunam is stucco used in India.
63.
After the fall of Pondicherry in 1761, the French power in India virtually came to an end. For a detailed discussion see Percival Spear, The Oxford History of Modern India: 1740-1947 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965).
64.
The discussion on Marquis Dupleix’s government house is based on Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850; and Preeti Chopra, ‘‘Pondicherry: A French Enclave in India,’’ in Forms of Dominance.
65.
Said, Orientalism.
66.
The discussion on William Jones and William Chambers is based on S. N. Mukherjee, Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth-Century British Attitudes to India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); and Stephen Cairns, ‘‘The Stone Books of Orientalism,’’ in Colonial Modernities.
67.
Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
68.
Ibid.
69.
James Fergusson , History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vols. 1 & II (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Oriental Publishers, [1876] 1967 ).
70.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 4.
71.
Ibid.
72.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 6.
73.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 32.
74.
Fergusson, History of Architecture in All Countries: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Vol. I, 2nd ed. (London: John Murray, 1874).
75.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 12.
76.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 41.
77.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 352.
78.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. I, 37.
79.
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. II, 188.
80.
Among others see Philip Davies, Splendours of the Raj: British Architecture in India, 1660-1947 (New York: Penguin Books, [1985] 1987); Tillotson, The Tradition of Indian Architecture; Metcalf, An Imperial Vision; and Peter Scriver, ‘‘Stones and Texts: The Architectural Historiography of Colonial India and its Colonial-Modern Contexts,’’ in Colonial Modernities.
81.
Scriver, ‘‘Stones and Texts.’’
82.
Karl Marx was the first philosopher to refer to the ‘‘Sepoy Mutiny’’ as the ‘‘First Indian War of Independence. See Karl Marx, The First Indian War of Independence (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, [1857] 1959).
83.
The discussion in this paragraph is based on Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
84.
The discussion on Bombay is based on, Davies, Splendours of the Raj; and Metcalf, An Imperial Vision. For a detailed discussion on the British effort to define Bombay as a European city in their discursive practices, see the above sources.
85.
Metcalf, An Imperial Vision. The memorial was conceived of immediately after the death of Queen Victoria in 1901 and completed in 1921.
86.
Davies, Splendours of the Raj; and Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
87.
Metcalf, An Imperial Vision.
88.
Ibid.
89.
Rudyard Kipling , ‘‘Letters of Marque,’’ in From Sea to Sea: Letters of Travel, Part I, Rudyard Kipling ( New York: Double Day, Page and Company [ 1899]1907), 20.
90.
For a detailed discussion on the various types of palaces that were built by the princes, among others see Metcalf, An Imperial Vision; and Tillotson, The Tradition of Indian Architecture.
91.
For a detailed discussion on the prolonged debate architectural styles to be used in New Delhi, among others see, Metcalf, An Imperial Vision; and Tillotson, The Tradition of Indian Architecture.
92.
Lord Stamfordham as quoted in Robert Grant Irving, Indian Summer: Luytens, Baker, and Imperial Delhi (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 72.
93.
Ibid, 72. The Jumma Masjid is one of the largest mosque in India situated in the city of Shahjahanabad (old Delhi), while the ridge lies to the north of that city. The fort refers to a fortress palace of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan completed in 1648.
94.
The author has added the phrase in italics.
95.
Irving, Indian Summer, 73.
96.
See Anthony Disney, ‘‘The Portuguese Empire in India c. 1550-1650: Some Suggestions for a Less Seabourne, More Landbound Approach to its Socio-Economic History,’’ in Indo-Portuguese History: Sources and Problems, ed. John Correia-Afonso (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1981).
97.
Nihal Perera , Society and Space: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Postcolonial Identity in Sri Lanka (Boulder: Westview Press, 1998).
98.
Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850.
99.
Disney, ‘‘The Portuguese Empire in India c. 1550-1650;’’ and Perera, Society and Space.
100.
See K. G. Jayne, Vasco Da Gama and His Successors 1460-1580 (New York and London: Barnes and Noble, Inc. and Methuen and Co. [1910] 1970).
101.
The description of settlements patterns, town planning practices and architectural styles used by the Portuguese is based on Helder Carita, Palaces of Goa: Models and Types of Indo- Portuguese Civil Architecture (Cartago; London, [1997] 1999); J. M. Richards, Goa (Vikas Publishing House: New Delhi, 1982); Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850; and Perera, Society and Space.
102.
K. G. Jayne, Vasco Da Gama and His Successors 1460-1580.
103.
The Commentaries of the Great Afonso Dalboquerque, Second Viceroy to India, Vol III. Translated from the Portuguese edition of 1774 with notes and introduction by Walter De Gray Birch (New York: Burt Franklin [1884] 1970), 262-3.
104.
See, K. G. Jayne, Vasco Da Gama and His Successors 1460-1580; and Frederick Charles Danvers, The Portuguese in India: Being a History of the Rise and Decline of their Eastern Empire, Vol. Two (Octagon Books: New York [1894] 1966) for a detailed discussion on the decline of the Portuguese empire in India.
105.
For a detailed discussion on motives for Portuguese colonization see Jayne, Vasco Da Gama and His Successors 1460-1580; and Geneviève Bouchon, ‘‘Portuguese Documents on Sixteenth Century India,’’ in Indo-Portuguese History: Sources and Problems, ed. John Correia-Afonso (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1981).
106.
For discussion on mixed marriages and development of Indo-Portuguese culture see Jayne, Vasco Da Gama and His Successors 1460-1580; and Geneviève Bouchon, ‘‘Portuguese Documents on Sixteenth Century India.’’
107.
The discussion on Tranquebar is based on Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850.
108.
Kathleen Blechynden, Calcutta Past and Present (London: W. Thacker and Company, 1905).
109.
Ibid.
110.
The discussion on town planning in Pondicherry is based on and S. P. Sen, The French in India: First Establishment and Struggle ( Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1947); Nilsson, European Architecture in India 1750-1850; and Chopra, ‘‘Pondicherry.’’
111.
Fay, Original Letters from India (1779-1815), 181.
112.
Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, in the Years 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1806, Vol. I, 192.
113.
Kerr, The Land of Ind, 93.
114.
See for example, Sunil K Munshi, ‘‘Genesis of the Metropolis,’’ in Calcutta 1981: The City, Its Crisis and the Debate on Urban Planning and Development, ed. Jean Racine (New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, [1986] 1990); and Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta.
115.
The description of early town planning practices in Calcutta is based on Blechynden, Calcutta Past and Present; and H. E. A. Cotton, Calcutta Old and New: A Historical and Descriptive Handbook to the City ( Calcutta: W. Newman and Company, 1907), unless otherwise stated.
116.
Blechynden, Calcutta Past and Present, 68.
117.
Archer, ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens.’’
118.
The discussion on Wellesley’s Town Planning Committee and the Lottery Committee is based on Blechynden, Calcutta Past and Present; Cotton, Calcutta Old and New; Archer, ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens;’’ Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta; and Munshi, ‘‘Genesis of the Metropolis.’’
119.
See Archer, ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens’’ for a detailed discussion on the resistance offered by the indigenous population.
120.
Munshi, ‘‘Genesis of the Metropolis.’’
121.
Archer, ‘‘Paras, Palaces, Pathogens.’’
122.
Roberts, Scenes and Characteristics of Hindostan with Sketches of Anglo-Indian Society, Vol. I, 9.
123.
Chattopadhyay, ‘‘Blurring Boundaries;’’ and Chattopadhyay, Representing Calcutta.
124.
See King, Colonial Urban Development; and Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of India. The cantonments were the institutionalized form of settlements for military representatives of the British colonial power. These strategic centers were generally close to where the indigenous populations resided, to maintain British control over them and protect the British Empire against external threats.
125.
Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia, and Egypt, in the Years 1802, 1803, 1804, and 1806, Vol. I, 192.
126.
Roberts, Scenes and Characteristics of Hindostan with Sketches of Anglo-Indian Society, Vol. I, 10.
127.
For a detailed discussion of such discourses see King, Colonial Urban Development; and King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy.
128.
Ibid.
129.
Kipling, ‘‘City of Dreadful Night,’’ in From Sea to Sea, 227.
130.
Ibid, 187.
131.
For a detailed discussion of his views on Indian cities, see Jaqueline Trywhitt, J. ed., Patrick Geddes in India (London: Lund Humphries, 1947).
132.
Since tenth century BC, Delhi had been the site of nine cities and served as the capital of many dynasties, the last of which was, Shahjahanabad. The fifth Mughal Empire, Shah Jahan who decided to shift his capital from Agra to Delhi 1638, built it as the capital of the Mughal Empire in the seventeenth century. See Stephen P. Blake, Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639-1739 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
133.
The discussion on Delhi is based on King, Colonial Urban Development; Narayani Gupta, Delhi Between Two Empires 1803-1931: Society, Government and Urban Growth (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, [1981]1998); and Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities.
134.
The civil station was developed for the civilian members of the colonizers. It was situated either along with the cantonment and indigenous city as a part of a major administrative center; or it was part of smaller administrative town, generally without a cantonment.
135.
For a detailed discussion on planning exercises in this period, among others see King, Colonial Urban Development; Veena Talwar Oldenberg, The Making of Colonial Lucknow, 1856-1877 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); and King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy.
136.
Among others see Mariam Dossal, Imperial Designs and Indian Realities: The Planning of Bombay City, 1845-1875 (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1991).
137.
King, Colonial Urban Development; King, ‘‘Exporting Planning;’’ and King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy.
138.
King, Colonial Urban Development; King, ‘‘Exporting Planning;’’ and King, Urbanism, Colonialism, and the World Economy.
139.
Irving, Indian Summer.
140.
See Jyoti Hosagrahar, ‘‘City as Durbar: Theater and Power in Imperial Delhi,’’ in Forms of Dominance;’’ and Blake, Shahjahanabad. The Durbar was a Mughal ritual of sustaining and validating the structure of the society by holding court, where administrative matters were attended to, offices and ordinances proclaimed, awards bestowed, complains heard, and ambassadors received. The British adopted this indigenous ritual from the eighteenth century when officials held meetings with Indian princes and subordinates. The British Durbar was formalized it in 1877, when an imperial assemble in Delhi declared Queen Victoria, the Empress of India.
141.
See Hosagrahar, ‘‘City as Durbar.’’ According to Hindu legends, Delhi (then known as Indraprastha)dates back to the Vedic period in tenth century BC. Mahabharata, a Hindu epic mentioned the construction of the city.
142.
Lord Hardinge as quoted in Irving, Indian Summer, 29.
143.
Irving, Indian Summer.
144.
Lawrence J. Vale.Architecture, Power, and National Identity, 2nd ed. (Routledge: London, 2008).
145.
Irving, Indian Summer.
146.
Ibid.
147.
Ibid.
148.
Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities.
149.
The discussion on the resistance offered by the indigenous population in Old Delhi and in the new housing enclaves is based on Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities; and Hosagrahar, ‘‘Negotiated Modernities.’’
