CHAPTER - 1

Concept, Origin and Siting of Cantonment Towns

1.0 Introduction
The major cities of contemporary India are directly the creation of
colonialism or repostes to it. Within the cities, the British governed the
public place according to their own alien concepts. The idea was to create
a masquerade of a modern city and to flaunt the superior rationality and
power of the colonizer. As such, with the British regime in India, came
four types of settlements- Provincial capitals (port cities), the Cantonments
(the military stations), the Hill stations and the Railway towns.
The foundation of the provincial capitals - the three port cities
Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, took place in 1639, 1665 and 1668
respectively. Their raison-de-etre was geared to commercial extraction and
exploitation of wealth. By nineteenth century, the importance and size of
these port cities had far exceeded the importance of older centres for
example, administration (Murshidabad), religion (Banares), manufacturing
(Dacca) and trade (Calicut). This period also saw the stagnation of a large
number of old inland urban centres and the supremacy of the three new
coastal ports, through which manufactured products from Britain entered
India.1 Soon after, the capitals of inland provinces were located on the
trunk routes like Allahabad, Lahore and Nagpur. All these provincial
capitals, built as an accretion to the existing native towns, were
administrative as well as commercial centres. In the provincial capitals, the

18
residential areas for the white population and the areas occupied by them
were distinctively better in regard to layout, amenities, entertainment and
commercial activities. The native areas, within the provincial capitals were
allowed to grow without much direction, as they had existed before,
without any provision for legislation, taxation and policy.
The Cantonments in India were developed in the initial few decades
of the nineteenth century, and established along the main routes of the
country, at strategic places. The Cantonments are generally regarded as a
part of typical urban growth, usually subsumed under the phrase 'colonial
urban development'. The phrase is used to generalize the type of urban
development that took place under colonial impetus in India in the
nineteenth century. The growth of Cantonment towns and their number
was directly connected to the British military expansion and military need
of the colonial power to control the older native city, which once conquered
had to be integrated into the economic system of neo-imperalism.2
The Cantonments were thus an entirely new kind of urban centres
introduced by the British on the Indian landscape. These, because of then-
very nature showed special locational preferences. The Cantonments started
as 'temporary encampments of the military and their camp-followers'.
Gradually the population of the Cantonments increased as quarters were
built for dependents, servants and camp-followers, and especially when
certain persons were allowed to erect accommodations at their own
expense. In most Cantonments, bazaar areas were designated in which
civilians were allowed to build shops and houses, although some of these
concessions extended beyond the bazaar sections. All sites, however,

19
remained the property of the British Government and were 'resumable on a
month's notice and on payment of compensation for the authorised
superstructures.'3 Thus the most important characteristic of the urban
development during the colonial period is the tripartite division of the urban
space into 'Native city',' Cantonment' and the 'Civil station' (which was
frequently incorporated in the Cantonment), although the basic military
and civil institutions were kept separate.4
The Hill stations were a third type of urban settlement of the colonial
period and they emerged after the establishment of Cantonments. This was
a completely new trend in urban settlements. Although Hill stations were
not unknown, prior to their founding by the British in India, they were few
and had a small population and were often visited seasonally for specific
purposes. For example, Srinagar was a Mughal recreational centre,
Kedarnath and Badrinath were Hindu religious centres, Almora in the
Kumaon hills was an administrative town of the local rulers. The
development of a large number of Hill stations over a wide area was a
British introduction to India. The Hill stations were established in response
to the health and social requirements of the colonial community, to have an
exclusive 'social space' the environment of which resulted from the
distinctive forms of culture-specific behaviour and conjured up prospects
of health and vitality, promises of fun and relaxation. Hill stations were
developed both in North India and South India, for example Simla, Nanital,
Darjeeling, OotaCkmand and Kodaikanal.5

20
 These Hill stations were primarily the places where the Governors
of Provinces, the administrators and the white population could spend
their summer holidays away from the hot and dusty plains of India which
led to the development of these centres of social activities.6 These
picturesque Hill stations were patterned with spacious bungalows, parks,
roads, avenues, vistas and rides. The residential areas of the native
population were at lower levels with little or nothing in the way of sanitary
facilities, while the military area was situated at elevated areas. One
always went up to the military area and came down to the civil area where
there was a concentration of the native population. Perhaps this could be a
psychological way of making the natives aware of their lower status.7
The Railway towns were the fourth type of urban settlement of the
colonial period and were established in 1853, after the introduction of
railway by the British. By the very nature of railway transport, all the towns
were located on the plains and the largest number of these towns were
located in Uttar Pradesh on the Ganga-Yamuna plain. The railway
settlements in the plains became the focal point of urban development in
many places. Many of these towns were either at important railway
junctions for example, Mughalsarai or at a terminus, for example, Howrah,
Calcutta. The railway settlement housing the railway employees and the
workshops, was not as strictly segregated form the city population as the
Cantonment and very often developed near existing old towns, for example
Banares and Mughalsarai.8

21
 Thus, the four sets of settlements, established by the British in
India, were meant for extraction of natural resources (Port cities),
governance of the colonized areas (Cantonments), to safeguard the health
and social requirements of the white population (Hill station) and for the
movement of troops and transport of goods (Railway towns). (Fig. 1:1).

1.1 Cantonment - Concept and Definition

The word Cantonment signifies a permanent army camp among
those cultures where English is used as thefirstlanguage. Its usage became
popular among the members of the Colonial Third culture* in India and has
persisted even after the country gained independence.9 The etymology of
the word Cantonment gives a valuable insight, both into the physical-spatial
organization as well as in its location, in relation to the other components
in the colonial urban system. Camp (from the Latin 'campus' - field) is
'used more particularly in a military sense' and represents 'a temporarily
organized place of food and shelter in open country as opposed to ordinary
housing. The purpose of camp being to keep the troops together rather
than being scattered around.10 A military station (Latin, statio, onis :
standing place, residence) is 'a place for the rendezvous of troops or the
distribution of them; 'garrison' (from the French 'gamier' - to furnish)
implies 'the guard of a fortified place, or the place itself.....' 'garrison
town' is a well guarded place in which troops are quartered and do duty for
the security of the town, keeping a main guard in or near the market
place.11

22
 Colonial cities

Port cities Cantonment Hill Station Railway Towns

Capital of Capital of Inland Provinces Culture-specific area: Developed on Plains

Provinces developed along the trunk routes a social space for quick movemen
around ports. and strategic places developed by of troops and
the colonial transport of
community for goods
health and
recreation.

Regulative Institutions Residence of Economic institutions

of Government & British Ofiicers Commerical Activities
administration. (Bunglow Area) Residence of
Troops Civil Population.
(Barrackis) -

Fig. 1.1 Colonial Urban Development

 The term Cantonment stems originally from the French word
'canton' having the meaning of, to quarter, divide a part from or cut off,
out of a whole, to separate, or sever by division.12
In the colonial third culture, the concept of permanent military camp
is termed as Cantonment- a word which 'has become almost appropriated as
Anglo-Indian, being so constantly used in India and so little elsewhere. It is
applied to military stations in India, built usually on a plan which is
originally that of a standing camp or Cantonment.'13

1.2 Cantonments - A Description

The Cantonment may be described as an enclosed area, separated
from other socio-spatial units and divided into spatial areas confirmed by
the Cantonment plans. The Cantonment towns by themselves, form a
discreet phenomenon in the colonial settlement fabric due to their location
and population attributes and are replicated monotonously all over India.
Especially so, after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, large military
establishments were created with regional head-quarters in urban centres
and with smaller compounds in the outlying towns. In Cantonments were to
be found, not only military personnel with their servants and retainers but
foreign businessmen, Anglo-Indians, other Eurasians and 'native people' to
whom the military decision makers chose to accord privileges and rights,
which were more extraterritorial. This elaborate system widened steadily
into a bureaucratic system which has had a profound and seemingly
permanent effect on the Indian economy, projecting its stultifying
influences far beyond the movement of Indian liberation. For this system

23
of military surveillance, required the extended use of 'native' soldiers and
'native' bureaucrats, thereby establishing norms of procedure, conduct,
even of thought, which, after generations of inculcation and acceptance,
came to be regarded by many as proper and right. The arrogance of the
privileged Europeans, the favouritism enjoyed by the native servants,
soldiers and concessionaires bred increasing resentment, jealousy and
anger. Native businessmen saw the best ventures dominated by foreigners
or by their hirelings- 'managing agents'. Moreover, the economic
development of a landscape such as it was, had an imperialistic orientation,
one whose epicentre was London, Liverpool or Manchester rather than
Kanpur, Lucknow or Allahabad.14

1. 3 Cantonments: Spatial Organization

The spatial arrangements in the Cantonment were the antithesis of
those in the Native city, as the Cantonments were planned with wide roads
in a gridiron pattern - with low density housing - laid out strictly according
to their ranks. The parade grounds and the Mall had where shops and
entertainment facilities were located for the use of army personnel.
Typically, the European troops were 'accommodated in the brick built or
wooden barracks' in the Cantonment. The European officers lived in more
opulent and spacious homes. The officers were housed in bungalows
within a complex of gardens, servants' quarters and carriage-house, in a
compound of an acre or more. Senior officers' compounds, in some
Cantonments, were five to ten acres in size. The native troops lived in self-
contained, thatched huts at some distancefromthe European quarters.

24
 The Cantonment included other facilities that satisfied European
cultural and social needs. There was a Catholic and an Anglican Church
with private cemeteries, a race course, a clubhouse with rooms for dancing,
drinking, dining and indoor games, which included a canteen and a ball
court and library for European soldiers. The aim was to create a small
European cosmos at the edge of the city not only to compensate the officers
for the hardships of serving their country in an alien land, but also to
provide European soldiers with adequate recreational facilities so that they
were less tempted to taste the pleasures, the 'native city' had to offer. The
regimental bazaars obviated trips to the city markets as the army canteen
supplied them with goods imported from 'home' to keep nostalgia at bay
and patriotism from flagging. To keep soldiers physically fit and their
martial skills in good repair, there were parades, camping grounds,
exercising grounds, shooting ranges, a magazine, an arms' store, workshop,
and horse lines and to remind them of their patriotic duty, there were
equestrian statutories, prominently located memorials to the heroes of the
mutiny and ceremonial parade grounds of the battle scarred Residency.

1. 4 Siting of Cantonments : Health Considerations

Health factor was another important factor which influenced the
setting up of Cantonments. The hostile Indian climate - the dust, heat and
sweat was a major impediment for the British troops to keep good health as
they camefromthe European continent which had a much cooler climate.

25
 The passages quoted below show the seriousness of the health
problem and the obsession of the British with it.
"But efforts to reproduce the amenities of home were no protection
at all against the biggest hazard the British faced in India, which was the
health hazard. Sickness in Europe at that time was on a scale to dismay our
pill popping and deodorized society, but in India it was of an order to defeat
the imagination. Any disease that thrives on heat and moisture was rampant
and the mortality rate among company employees was little short of
devastating. Fourteen out of twenty one people in the factory at Surat had
died between the winter of 1630-31 and spring of 1633".16
"The place (Calcutta) reeks with malaria. Yet tried even by the low
standard of its own day, it was extraordinarily unhealthy. Death over-
shadowed every living soul. Hamilton says that in one year out of twelve
hundred English in Calcutta, no less than four hundred and sixty died
between August and January. No direct confirmation of this terrible
mortality bill is to be found in the records, but both in August 1705 when a
second surgeon was appointed to assist Dr. Warren in October 1707 when it
was resolved to build a hospital, we were informed that the sick and dying
were super abundant." 1?
"Familiarity with death did not make it easier to bear. The extremes
of Indian climate do not give that sense of the renewal of life that comes
with the cycle of the seasons in a temperate region. Many Europeans in
India have felt deprived of that certainty and confidence."18 "Death was
never far away."19

26
 "Men tormented by heat, mosquitoes, ill health and frustration of
their daily work".20
"The area around Calcutta was largely swamp and the death rate
among Job Charnock's men there as they struggled to establish the
company was so high that they called it Golgotha, the place of skulls It
has been estimated that between 1707 to 1775, no fewer than fifty percent
of the company employees died of sickness in Bengal; in the worst decade
from 1747 to 1756, the toll stood at seventy four percent." 21
Thus to safeguard the health of the troops, as mortality took a heavy
toll on manpower and to control venereal diseases, epidemics like malaria
and cholera, which were killers - was one of the important tasks for the
British authorities. The hostile climate and its devastating impact on the
British troops made the British Authorities realize the seriousness and take
special measures for ensuring the health of the soldiers. As a result, troops
were cantoned in barracks exclusively built for them and set up for the
exclusive use of the army. 22 According to the prevalent ethno-medical
theories of the day, diseases were spread through 'smell', 'moisture' and
'vapor'. Therefore the teeming 'native city' with its 'crowds' 'smells' had
to be avoided by building Cantonments awayfromthe windward side of the
'native town'. (Fig. 1:2).

1.5 Evolution of Cantonment as an Institution

The pillars of British Supremacy in India were firmly grounded by
two 'statesmen-cum-generals' : Robert Clive and Warren Hastings. Hyder
Ali, Tipu Sultan, the Nawabs of Oudh, the Peshwas, the Sultans, the Rajahs

27
 r
v.
V \*r
J
r
s
u. 0 200• 400 Km

/ ^ 1

IS n s /"
S s D v.

f -^
1
I \
8 * \

S
O
®
a

o 1. A Hill-Top Towns
2. ^ Spur Towns
3. V- River and Ridge Towns
4. T Valley and Valley Head Towns
5. + Ridge and Ridge Crest Towns
v© 6. X Plateau Towns
7. c Coastal Towns
8. D Towns on Major Transport Mode
9. O Towns on Major Road Route Ways

Fig. 1:2 Cantonment Towns In India - Sites

and the Maharajahs and in the end the Mughals no longer remained on the
political scene. The East India Company's army consisting of Indian
sepoys, some English troops and a few English officers were posted at
vantage points, which were areas selected in the vicinity of towns and
cities, where a small contingent of troops were kept. These in time came to
be known as Cantonments.
Lord Robert Clive 1765, in consideration of health and discipline of
the troops initiated the policy of establishment of Cantonments in India.
Cantonments then denoted only barracks or other buildings constructed for
housing the troops. Cantonments later acquired a broader meaning of a
demarcated area, for the exclusive use of the army, by the beginning of the
nineteenth century. The defeat of Tipu Sultan, the annexation of the
Carnatic and the reduction of the Nizam of Hyderabad to the position of a
subordinate ally in the beginning of the nineteenth century made the British
believe that their Empire in India had already been established. This fact
justified the need for quartering troops in a planned manner and this,
therefore, is considered as a first step towards institutionalizing
Cantonments in India. (Fig. 1:3)
Ever since the Cantonment as an establishment came into existence,
the army authorities themselves, in accordance with the rules and orders
promulgated by the Commanding Officers, catered to the immediate needs
like sanitation and hygiene. By and large, establishing Cantonments for
housing the troops had some beneficial impact, as the troops so housed
enjoyed better health and it boosted their morale.

28
 r s-^,
y

>• Cantonments and Garrisons •^ Cantonments and Garrisons

U
X established By the British (1811) / " X established by British (1813)
/ 12.13 "..'3 , , 1 5 , ' ' J—'S
15. f

J 2
.16 01 -,-"» ' <« * •'
ief. a*. 23 --.^.^^.u j
» "».oo . " S <. _ <
19//20 7 4'/" / /

10. Hansi 14. Koonch 24. Kissengunge

1. Agra
ll.Hazareebagh 15. Moradabad 25. Meerut
3. Banda 1. Agra
12. Koitah 16. Muttra 26. Midnapore
2. Borhampore 2. Banda
4. Bhagulporc 13. Karnal 3. Borhampore 17. Nomihla, Agra 27. Cawnpore
14. Koonch 18. Torrowa 28. Dacca
!•. Chittagong 4.'Bhagulpore
15. Moradabad 19. Allahabad 29. Etowah
(.. Cuttack 5. Chittagong
*Cw 7. Dinapore 16. Muttra 6. Cuttack 10. Hansi 20. Benares(Secrole) 30. Ghazipore
' ii. Futtehpore 17. Nomihla, Agra 7. Dinapore 11. Hazareebagh 21. Balasore 31. Myapcorie
(
A Goorgoan 18. Torrowa 8. Futtehpore 12. Koitah 22. Bareilley 32. Revaree
9. Goorgoan 13. Karnal 23. Goruckpore 33. Terra, Mirzapore

l)
i
\ >9 S Location of Major
Bfitish Military 0 500 400
(•.io',2,9 ? Location of Cantonments in India (1989)
[Vn»^ Kitom«lr«5
-r° " # 15w«"<; Cantonments in India
/ 54 A 7 0 , / . . ' '
•ll}£& (1864)

25 Deolalf
26 Faziabad
27 Fategarh 46 Mhow
28 Ferqjpore 47 Morar
1 Agra 26 Jalapahar 41 Mhow 29 Jabalpur
2 Ahmcdabad 48 Nainital
27 J7hansi 42 Nanital 30 Jalandhar
3 Ahmednagar 49 Nasirabad
28 Jabalpore 43 Na43sirabad 31 Jalapahar
4 Allahabad 50 Panchmari
29 Jullundhar 44 Panchmari 32 Jammu
5 Almora 51 Pune
30 Jutogh 45 Poona Agra 13 Bareilly 33 Jhansi
6 Ambala 16 Clement Town 31 52 Ramgarh
Kamptee 46 Ramgarh Ahmedabad 14 Barrackpore 34 Jutogh 53 Ranikhet
7 Amritsar 17 Dagshai 32 Kanpur 47 Ranikhet Ahmednagar 15 Belgaum 35 Kamptee 54 Roorkee
8 Aurangabad 18 Dalhousie 33 Kasauli 48 Roorkee Ajmer 16 Cannanore 36 Kanpur
9 Bakloh 19 Delhi 55 Saugar
34 Kirkee 49 St. Thomas Allahabad 17 Chakrata 37 Kasuli
10 Banaras 20 DegraDun 56 Secunderabad
35 Landour 50 Saugar Almora 18 Clement Town 38 KhasYol 57 Shahjaharpur
11 Barrackpore 21 Deolali 36 Lansdowne 51 Secunderabad Ambala 19 Dagshai 39 Kirkee
13: Bareilly 22 Dinapore 58 Shillong
37 Lebong 52 Shahjahanpur 8 Amritsar 20 Dalhousie 40 Landour
12 Belgaum 23 Faziabad 59 St. Thomas Mt.
38 Lucknow 53 Shillong 9 Aurangabad 21 Danapur 41 Lansdowne 60 Subathu
V- Cannanore 24 Fategarh 39 Mathura 54 Subathu 10 Babina 22 DehraDun 42 Lebong
i;; Chakrata 25 Ferozepur 61 Varanasi
40 Meerut 55 Wellington 11 Badamibagh 23 DehuRoad 43 Lucknow 62 Wellington
12 Bakoh 24 Delhi 44 Mathura
45 Meerut
Fig. 1:3 Growth & Development of Cantonments in India
 The peculiar feature of most of these Cantonments was that the
Governments of Bombay and Calcutta of the East India Company refused
to build houses for their army officers and even in respect of some of those
houses that were built earlier with the company's funds, directions were
given to dispose off such buildings to any buyer. The East India Company
repeatedly refused to countenance any applications for loans for building or
disposal of houses and went to the length of directing officers commanding
the stations to ask any officer who may have built or purchased a house for
his use to sell it to any one he may wish to. This principle was followed
with astounding consistency and on the other hand indigenous population
was invited and encouraged to build houses which could be rented for the
use of army officers.
Thus in Cantonment stations, officers were not encouraged to invest
in their accommodation, by purchasing bungalows, which were available,
or by building them at their cost on land set aside for the purpose. The
civilian personnel were allowed to construct bungalows, with stipulation
that they could let them out to the officers on reasonable rent. It was also
assumed that no bungalows or quarters in a Cantonment could be allowed
to be sold or occupied by any person who did not belong to the army. In
regard to the ownership of land in Cantonment areas, there was a strong
assumption that all land in occupation of the army belonged to the British
Government, having been acquired either through conquest or purchase and
that these lands could not be appropriated for any use other than that of the
army.23

29
 Though the Cantonments started as temporary encampments of the
military and their 'camp followers' - the civil population which comprised
of business people who catered to the needs of the British army, however,
in due course became 'permanent' camps with residential accommodations
of the bungalow type for officers. In Cantonments, the other civil elements
besides the camp followers, included categories like butchers, milk vendors,
bakers, vegetable and fruit suppliers, sweepers, gardeners, cooks, ayahs,
carpenters, pankhawalas, mahouts, bishtees, kalassy etc. Women who
catered to the troops were also there. All these were segregated in a
separate area known as 'bazaar area', from where they rendered their
services or pursued their trades and professions.
In Cantonment only the army personnel were subject to military rule,
while the civilians were tried at courts in the civil station- a distinct socio-
spatial unit developed and was occupied by civilian members of the
colonial bureaucracy such as a 'judge', 'collector', 'magistrate',
superintendent of police', etc. In order to ensure the health of the troops by
providing better sanitation and hygiene in Cantonment stations, to control
the spread of diarrhoea and malaria along with the rapid spread of venereal
diseases amongst the troops and to stop the consumption of countrymade
intoxicating illicit liquor, the British authorities initiated urgent measures
for regulating, interalia, the conduct and behavior of the civilians in the
Cantonments as well as for defining more clearly the powers of control and
administration exercised by the commanding officers.

30
1. 6 Other Considerations in the Siting of Cantonments
The location of Cantonments in India was largely fortuitous, decided
by the historical circumstances, of the contact between the two cultures.
Where the battles were fought or territories taken over, camps were set up.
In time, what was once temporary became more permanent. As already
mentioned, Cantonments were set close to the older traditional cities or
native towns, but were separated by a stretch of physical space.
Segregation became a hegemonic tool by which the small colonial elite
could establish cultural authority over the native population. The layout of
the Cantonment depended on norms of social organization in British
Society as well as the prevailing norms governing military organization in
the field. The aura of power and superiority that segregation gave to the
British was useful for the establishment of dominance and control.
Moreover, the impressive public buildings built in a neo-classical style in
the Civil Lines and the exclusive isolation of the bungalows in the
Cantonment dazzled the local population with the architectural language of
power.23
At another level, in the Cantonment, the British got a chance to
create a kind of settlement they preferred. The bungalow design with its
heat exclusion properties allowed them a great deal of comfort, the neat
grid-type streets, tree-lined avenues, gardens and vistas which appealed to
their aesthetic sense. The kind of landscape that emerged was therefore
necessarily different from the traditional Indian city. On the other hand, it
was also very different from the contemporary metropolitan culture like that
of London, Liverpool or Manchester. It was an urban form, unique to

31
 colonial presence and a norm of planning which was evolved due to special
needs of the British. Cantonments were meant to be self-sufficient, having
their own social and cultural areas and their reserved space for functional
use such as military training, churches, clubs, theatres, etc. This self
contained urban entity that nevertheless was closely connected to the
native city gave rise to the well known 'dual -city' or a town beside a town
structure.2 In turn the concentration of Cantonment towns in a region
added to the importance of that region. At the same time due to their failure
to develop strong hinterland relations, the concentration of Cantonments
had strong implications on the regional economy. For example, due to
continued performance of the same specific functions, there had been little
change in the basic functional structure of the Cantonment. This was
reflected in the general lack of diversification of their economy. In terms of
occupational structure, there seemed a heavy bias to services and not much
diversification.25 Partly, as a result of this and partly due to their inherent
attributes, Cantonments have not been able to develop a strong hinterland
relationship. Their interactions with the settlement in the surrounding
* regions were limited and weak, unlike the symbiotic relationships between
other types of towns and their hinterlands. Thus Cantonments were to a
certain extent, parasites in an economic sense. The co-existence of civil
and military components within the same administrative unit, provided an
interesting example of regional functioning of the two basically contrasting
ecological systemsfromthe same location.

32
 REFERENCES

[l]Manosi Lahiri.,(1990): British Influence On Indian Urbanization,

Geographical Review of India Vol.46, No.3, pp. 19-28.

[2] Samita Gupta.,: Differentiated Urban Boundaries: The Cantonment

in Colonial Pune. Unpublished Paper in author's possession undated

[3] Indian Central Committee on Cantonments. A report (1952): New

Delhi, pp. 2-3,16.

[4] King, A.D.,(1976): 'Colonial Urban Development Culture, Social

Power and Environment.' Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Henely &
Boston pp. 45.

[5] Mitchell Nora.,(1972): The Indian Hill Station: Kodaikanal,

University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Chicago, Research
Paper pp. 141.

[6] Arnold Whittick,(1950): Encyclopaedia of Urban Planning, Mc.graw

Hill Book Company, pp. 576.

33
[7] Sharma, K, D.,(1950): Patterns and Process of Urbanization in a
Himalayan State, 1881-1991, Transactions, Indian Institute of
Geographers, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992.

[8] Manosi Lahiri.,(1990): op cit. pp. 20-21

[9] King, A.D.,(1976): op cit. pp. 79.

[10]EncyclopaediaBritanica.,(1959): pp. 672.

[11] Stocqueler, J. H.,(1853): The Military Encyclopaedia, W. H. Allen

London, Quoted by King, A.D.,(1976) pp. 7.

[12] Murray, J.A.H.,(1888)^4 New English Dictionary on Historical

Principles, Clarendon Press: Oxford pp. 83.

[13] Yule H and Burnell, A.C.,(1903): Hobson-Jobson, A Glossary of

Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases, John , London, 1976, as
quoted by King, A.D., op cit. pp. 79.

[14] Johnson, E.A.J.,(1974): The Organization of Space in Developing

Countries, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts pp. 8.

34
[15] Talwar Veena 01denburg.,(1989): The Making of Colonial Delhi,
Oxford University Press pp. 52-53, (1994), as quoted by Jacob, T.,
Cantonments In India, Reliance Publishing House Delhi, pp. 3.

[16] Moorhouse Geoffrey.,(1984):India Britanica, pp. 24-25, 1984,

Paladin Books London, as quoted by Jacob,T.,(1994)pp. 12.

[17] Moorhouse Geoffrey.,(1984):op cit. 129-130, as quoted by Jacob,

T., (1994) pp. 12.

[18] Zoe Yalland.,(1987): Traders and Nabobs, (Michael Russell,Great

Britain) PP 72, as quoted by Jacob, T.,(1994) pp 13.

[19] Mason Philip.,(1985): The Men who ruled India, Dass Media,
Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta Madras, pp. 63, as quoted by Jacob,T., (1994)
pp. 13.

[20] Mason Philip.,(1985): op cit. pp. 64 as quoted by, Jacob, T.,

(1994) pp. 13.

[21] Moorhouse Geoffrey., (1984): op cit. 31, as quoted by Jacob, T.,

(1994) pp. 13.

[22] Jacob, T., op cit. pp. 22 (1994).

35
[23] Nilsson, S., (1968): European Architecture in India 1750-80,
London, as quoted by Gupta Samita, Architecture and the Raj: Western
Deccan 1700-1800, (1984) pp. .

[24] Boyden, P. S. (Dr.)-, (1989): Head of the Department of Archives,

Photographs, Film & Sound, National Army Museum. London, letter
dated 11/7/1989, as quoted by Jacob. T., pp. 91. (1994).

[25] K.Sita and Phadke, V. S., (1980): Declining Towns of India 1971,
Transactions, Indian Institute of Geographers Vol. 2 No. 2 page 4.

36