Indian cities have endured rapid growth during the 20th century. The independence from England and its separation of Pakistan triggered a vast migration flow toward India. This in combination with rural depopulation caused a huge pressure on city fabrics. Subsequently, a new national urban planning style was adopted and building demolition appeared to be everyday business. This resulted in cities that adopted a national architecture to compete in the world of global cities.
This paper explores whether the imperial masterplan is still recognizable in the city structures of the contemporary Indian city. This was examined by using the method of mapping on the case studies of New Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta. Both the physical as the organizational structure of their imperial masterplans were compared to their current situations. The aim of the paper is to determine whether India’s imperial master plan is still maintained in its urban form.
Key words: British colonial city, India, Urban environment, Mapping, Preserving history
Introduction
India houses some of the most fast growing cities on the globe. This puts a lot of pressure on existing city structure, forcing them to use extreme measures. However, this is not a contemporary problem, but an issue that appeared when the country shook of the yoke of her British oppressors.
Around 1600, the British started discovering India’s potential as a colony by the establishment of the precursor of the East India Company and their first successful boat journey. The East Indian Company got the monopoly on the trade of spices from the Indian lands. In 1614 the first oversea regional company agents were appointed (Riddick, 2006). In the 18th century the imperial era began to form itself, which continued to flourish until the middle of the 20th century.
Although the Indian independence movement started in 1857, their independence from England and separation from Pakistan did not occur until 1947. What followed was a mass migration between the two countries. Hindu’s and Sikhs moved to India and Muslims to Pakistan (King, 2015). Many of these refugees tried to find shelter in big Indian cities, resulting in a massive population growth and housing shortage. In addition rural depopulation enhanced this problem. Subsequently, cities had to be expanded and completely new settlements were built from scratch (Kalia, 2006).
Both Indian as western planners were engaged in formulating a new national style that would overshadow the past and contribute to a prosperous India. Le Corbusier compiled the planning principles for this new modern era. This both triggered a new appreciation for global architecture as a resistance for its un-Indian character (Kalia, 2006).
During the British occupation, many new buildings had been constructed according to an imported neoclassical style. When independence came, this posed major challenges for countries to represent their own identity and culture. At the same time the colonial residential buildings were often occupied by the indigenous administrative elite, which continued to reflect the inequalities of space and housing (King, 2015).
Since the 90’s Delhi has transformed rapidly. It now houses many luxury hotels, business centers, export villages and high-rise /gated housing for the fast growing middle class. All within the spatial matrix of the colonial plan (King, 2015).
One of these new trends in hypermodern space is the development of privatized cities within the Global South. The design objective of these cities is to create self-sufficient enclaves that are separated from the chaos and denseness of the main city. Living in these cities is only accessible for whom can afford it, which facilitates segregation to the main city once again (Mitra, 2015).
City development according to, again, hygienist motives has led to the demolition of squatter buildings, while these are the places the poor depend on (Dupont, 2008). In the most recent years, these demolitions were not initiated by the government but the outcome of court judgements (Bhan, 2009). This shows the power of the wealthy and companies, thus keeping the oppression by urbanization principles intact (King, 2015).
During the 20th century, Indian cities have undergone a big growth spurt. The large housing issue that arose as a result, was filled with buildings in the new modern style that should overshadow the imperial era. Later on this changed to an even global architectural design strategy to participate as world city. This leads us to the question whether the imperial era can still be discovered within the contemporary city.
To answer this question, a literature review will explore the background of the imperial city. Subsequently, three case studies on the cities of New Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta will be executed.
This research aims to find out whether the colonial city is preserved enough, in order to maintain evidence India’s colonial history.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
According to King (2015) there were three important phases during the development of colonial town planning in British colonies.
– 15th till 20th century: Settlements ensure political and military dominance
– Early 20th century; Master plan was the key concept
– Late 20th century: Post-colonial and neo colonial phase following independence, which tends to continue colonial practices.
Military dominance
The British would eventually dominate the whole of India as we know it today. The motive of discovery was often used during this period, since it made it possible for explorers and artists to represent the newly discovered lands as empty. Subsequently they could put their territorial claims upon it. During this period they idealized the Indian natives as ‘others’ (Singh, 1996). This suggest the beginning of a social division.
As seen in many other communities in the world, the British expressed their power rather theatrical. This in terms of processions, possessions and many royal and religious rituals. In the Europe of the 18th century and on, this was also ensured via the new route of administration and governance (Cohn, 1928 & Home, 1997). This included the classification of space, counting and classifying populations and the classification of (non) legitimate activities. Resulting in the suppression of the ones that did not fit in. The process of state building thus involved the restructuring of history, territory and society. In Great Britain this practice was seen as a cultural one, which emerged parallel with the nations imperial power (Cohn, 1928).
Till the twentieth century, the main focus of colonial settlements in India was to ensure political and military dominance. This function is portrayed in the urban fabric of these towns, which were derived from military codes and principles. For example, to protect the East Indian company and its goods.
Before the 20th century, most Indian settlements were based upon army cantonments connected to other centers by rail. They accommodated political administrative centers and were located close but distanced from Indian settlements (King 2015). A good example of using military principles within a new settlement is Delhi. It featured a cantonment North of the original city, based on a strong rectangular grid.
The masterplan
In the 20th century, the masterplan became the instrument of power for controlling and disciplining Indian lands. It had to bring order to the system of market spaces and it marginalized the poor. At micro level, it concerned control over street traders and informal housing. Resulting in spatial purification (King 2015).
The British believed the governing of a society could be seen as putting a series of facts based on their own views into practice (Cohn, 1928). The typical components of the British model of colonial town planning were; an urbanization policy, allocation of land rights, the practice of in advance planning, a grid of wide streets, public squares, standardized voluminous rectangular, reserved plots for public purposes and the physical separation between town and country by, for example, common land or a green belt (Home, 1997).
The urban development of a place depends on the origin of the settler and the geography/history of the settlement. Hence King (2015) formulated six types of colonial cities based on the degree of coercion exercised over the indigenous inhabitants. This could differ from complete enslavement to even annihilation. In the case of India, its occupiers often build the new settlement separately but close to an existing settlement. Where there was no previous indigenous settlement the new foundation could have different degradations in segregation; for the colonists only, for colonists with a separate location for other groups and lastly for the colonists and all/some of the intervening and indigenous groups (King 2015).
From the twentieth century on, the British started to continue building on these principles by importing their garden cities and starting their quest for sanitation (King, 2015). The premise of this planning style was to promote health, light and air. Low density, separate dwellings and extensive greenery were offered as the peaceful path to reform. However these exported ideas were for the white settlements only to reveal white supremacy and ethnic divisions. Each group within the Indian colonial settlements had its own assigned area without disturbing the overall distribution of power (King, 2015).
New neighborhoods for the white included large housing plots, lavish recreational facilities, telephones and plenty of domestic labor executed by the indigenous population. This exuberant master plan was based on the assumption of motorized traffic. Housing and wealthy districts where often placed at higher ground, because one thought the air was more healthy there. After the discovery of the true reason behind some deceases at the end of the nineteenth century, the space standards of European residential standards remained significantly higher in comparison to the homeland as a sign of colonial prestige. Thus buildings were not only used for accommodation, but also displayed colonial power and cultural/social differences. Hence the second reason to build central and on higher grounds, was to demand control (King, 2015).
Colonial powers classified indigenous forms of shelter as unhealthy and overcrowded, hence they were replaced by minimal detached housing units according to principles of garden city. However these buildings totally disregarded the local principles. During this era the quest to sanitation often became a cover for building demolition, exclusion, segregation and police sweeps (King, 2015).
Methodology
This paper aims to find an answer for the question whether the Colonial town can still be traced back into the current city tissues of New Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta. The methodology used to comprehend this situation is mapping. The imperial masterplan was designed to display colonial superiority, both in a physical and organizational way. Therefore, this method will make a comparison between the imperial and contemporary city structures on both subjects.
The used maps of the former imperial city structure of New Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta were copied and zincographed at the Ordnance Survey Office in Southampton and found online. These documents are used to get an understanding of the development of the imperial plan within the existing structures. The result of this first step will be a schematic overview of these plans.
Subsequently this structure will be projected on the contemporary city. The maps of the contemporary cities of New Delhi, Bangalore and Calcutta are obtained from www.openstreetmap.org and simplified. The aim of this methodology stem is to compare the physical structure of the two era’s.
Lastly, the placement of certain functions or housing of the different era’s is compared to each other. This will confirm whether the original division of functions and institutions is still intact.
RESULTS
New Delhi
The colonial masterplan for the city of New Delhi was designed by Lutyens [image 2]. New Delhi was built to the South of the original settlement and became a place for the white elite. Old Delhi remained for the original population. It was panned as a radial settlement with broad avenues sprouting from the center suitable for military parades. The city got an administrational and governmental function (King, 2015). Because of safety reasons, officials were housed according to their rank in detached houses along the boulevards, displaying the hierarchical system of power. The higher the rank, the closer an official was housed near the center. Since there were more white than indigenous officials in high ranks, racial and class differences became visible in the urban environment. In addition, to secure imperial safety and sanitation, spatial measures were made to separate the old native city from the new colonial city. Lastly the whole of Delhi was divided into zones based on defined by race, class and community for policy reasons (Beverly, 2011).
Image 3 shows us where the different parts of Delhi’s historical city are centered. The old city of Delhi housed by natives lies next to the river. North of it can be found the first imperial settlement; a rectangular military cantonment. While the master plan of Luytens is situated at the South of Old Delhi, separating the natives and oppressors.
As we project the plan of Luytens on the contemporary city of Delhi [Image 4], we can see there are a lot of similarities. Many streets of the original masterplan are preserved in the city of today. In addition the green areas have been maintained as well. When zooming in one can even see that the spacious separate housing blocks are still present.
When comparing the organizational structure of the two maps it becomes clear the area of New Delhi is still the center of governance. Most of the buildings in this area are used for political purposes. The old city of Delhi is a highly dense chaotic neighborhood, were many slums can be found. However many old buildings made place for buildings with multiple levels.