GEC ASSIGNMENT

Discuss the changes in the social and physical landscape of Delhi after
the revolt of 1857.

NAME – VANSHIKA KUNDU

YAER- 1ST
ROLL NO. – 21/POL/141
SUBMITTED TO – DR. AKHILA MATHEW
LOCATING THE AUTUMN OF 1857

Mutineers from Meerut 3rd Light Cavalry number not known said to be one
hundred and fifty men cut off communication with Meerut. Taken possessi-
on of the Bridge of the boats. 54th NI sent against them but would not act.
Several officers were killed and wounded. City is in a state of considerable
excitement. Troops sent down but nothing certain yet.

The ‘Revolt of 1857’ began on 10th May, 1857 when a sepoy mutiny was broken out in the
cantonment town of Meerut. These Meerut sepoys, who were jailed in the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry
for refusing the use of new cartridge, reached Delhi by crossing the bridge of boats on the Yamuna
River. The mutineers, almost immediately, revolted, many British residents were massacred and
Bahadur Shah Ⅱ accepted the nominal leadership of the rebellion. Subsequently, the rebellion was
transformed into a popular uprising as many people joined it, to fight against the British (firangi) Raj.
However, Britishers soon recaptured Delhi on 21st September, 1857 ruthlessly, after the end of the
short-lived rebellion.

The mutiny was projected as the work of a set of discontented ‘sepoys’ who were unhappy with the
introduction, in 1857, of the new Enfield rifle, with its distinct ammunition, which required the bullet
to be bitten before loading. Rumours that the grease used on the bullets was either from the fat of
cattle or pigs had serious implications. Therefore, whereas cows were considered “sacred” by the
Hindus, the Muslims considered pigs to be “polluting”. This created strong animosities and was
located as an attack on Hindu and Muslim religious beliefs. However, there were several perceptions
for this civil rebellion such as some socio-economic causes and so on. This mutiny not only
challenged colonialism, but also forced it to conceive ways of restoring itself to face a future
shrouded with uncertainties and challenges.

Ghalib, who was the eyewitness to the intellectual and literary traditions of Delhi, described the pre-
revolt years as the final “spring” in the city before the “autumn” of the Revolt’s aftermath destroyed
it forever. Finally, when the ‘autumn’ arrived it led to ruthless the murder of the civilians, the sepoys
as well as British officials looted the houses and palace, the British symbols were languished by the
sepoys and destruction of bazaars. The city of Delhi was impacted physically as well as socially
during and after this violent confrontation. The rebellion led to the end of the Mughal rule and
shifting of the power directly in the hands of British crown. For some years after the revolt there was
a dilemma whether the city should be destroyed or retained. But the impressive consolidation of
power in the hands of Britishers after the revolt, also, had impacted the city’s physical and social
landscape.

TRANSFOMATIONS IN THE PHYSICAL LANDSCPE OF DELHI AFTER THE ‘REVOLT

OF 1857’

The wheel had turned full-circle, the earlier capital of the subcontinent and the great Mughal
legitimacy became the dependency of the Britishers. As a consequence of the sepoy mutiny, the East
India Company was abolished and India came to be directly controlled by the British crown. The
encapsulated city of Delhi was battered and desolated. ‘The whole city of Delhi was depopulated’,
Lieutenant Edward Ommaney, an Urdu and Persian scholar wrote.
One only sees now and then, a body of sixty or so men and women going
along the street to one of the gates, to leave the place; barring this, not
one of the sepoys or the city people are seen. Our men can be seen in the
empty houses looting, and that is all. Of the 150,000 inhabitants, the whole
nearly have left. When Nadir Shah conquered the city that was not the case.

At the outset, the confiscation, demolition and, destruction in Delhi, especially on the British
buildings during the revolt, by the rebels acted as a catalyst for the Britishers to watershed the city’s
terrain, demolition of the ‘minor’ value buildings and shift the usage of monuments. Besides the
contestation of the landscape, the equally transforming was the commemoration of British victory,
which resulted in the qualitative construction of memorialized landscape by them. Therefore,
modifying the physical structure of Delhi was the mainstay of the Britishers. According to the
notable historian and archaeologist of ancient India, Nayanjot Lahiri, the transformation of the
capital can be ascertained through a field survey of monuments of the mutiny sites and monuments,
along with the archival sources, by specially referring to the files of the ASI and Deputy
Commissioner of Delhi that deal with the monuments and their status in the aftermath of the revolt.

A) Demolition and Destruction

From 1803 onwards, the administration was in the name of Mughal monarch, Bahadur Shah Zafar,
and his jurisdiction was limited to his palace. The Britishers had become de facto masters of Delhi-
administering justice, collecting revenue, repairing the fortifications of the city, improvement in the
sanitary arrangements and maintenance of peace and order in the city. So, when this violent
confrontation had centred in and around Shahjahanabad, the rebellions deliberately targeted the
symbols of British authority, which added insult to injury. Moreover, the revolt of 1857 unleashed a
perception of ‘treacherous Muslims’ and ‘loyal Hindus’ in the minds of Britishers. Intrinsically, the
stripping down of the British symbols during the aftermath of the revolt resulted in the imprudent
‘desacralization’ (Cohn 1987), as in retribution wherein the original functions and structures of some
important buildings were modified. Furthermore, the motive behind the desacralization was, also, to
house the British soldiers.

Implicit in the process of the modification of physical landscape was the construction of the Barracks
and major clearances in the interior of the Red Fort, the symbol of Mughal sovereignty, to house the
European Barracks and other regiments of the garrison. The Zafar Mahal and Naqar Khana were
used as bath for soldiers and quartering the officers respectively. Furthermore, the grounds of the fort
were levelled and the debris collected from that was used in the construction of glacis around the
walls of the fort. Cookhouses and privies were built in the various parts of the fort per se, near the
Zafar Mahal. Apart from modifying the Fort to the hilt, the ‘minor’ value or presumably less
important buildings were demolished by the Britishers within the Fort. The changes outside the fort,
which included considerable demolition of the buildings within 450 yards from the walls of the Fort
were even more dramatic and vivid.

The whipped up protective attitude of the Britishers after the aftermath of the revolt led to the
considerable demolition of the buildings within a 450-yard limit from Fort’s walls. This was
succinctly done for security reasons of the European Barracks and British officials residing in the
palace, to remove what was called as the ‘dangerous cover’. As Gupta observes, ‘what the
government was doing was necessary for the security led to some of the loveliest buildings of the
city being destroyed’. The Urdu bazaar, the Khas bazaar and some squares, for instance, of S’a-ad—
ullah Khan were razed by the Britishers. The submissive attitude of the Britishers for ‘loyal Hindus’
led to the escape of Dariba- a locality of Hindu merchants and shopkeepers within the 500 yards
radius- from demolition, and above all, resulted in the reduction of the area of clearance around the
fort from 500 to 450 yards. Fortunately, the elegant Sunheri Mosque, near the Delhi Gate of the
palace, escaped demolition obviously because it offered a very little ‘cover’, though confiscated by
the British government.

The intentional desacralisation and the idea of ‘subversive Muslims’ had led to the desecration of the
city mosques as well. The Jama Masjid, the largest congregational mosque of Delhi, was officially
closed down for worship and for a short span of time was used as Barracks to house the Sikh
soldiers. Another campaign of confiscation led to the conversion of the Zinat ul- Masjid into a
bakery for troops by the Commissariat Department. Situated at the western end of Chandni Chowk,
the Fatehpuri Mosque was also confiscated; its shops and precincts were sold to Chunna Mal, one of
the richest Hindu bankers, in a public auction. Between, 1858 and 1862, a land transaction was
carried out, the houses of Muslims were confiscated who could not prove themselves innocent and a
large number of houses were vandalised to build cantonments and the railway line. Moreover, in the
early 1860s, the Lahore and Delhi Gates of the Red fort were renamed Victoria and Alexandra.
Moreover, after the events of 1857, the Kabuli Darwaza was popularly known as bloody gateway or
Khuni Darwaza, as it was associated with bloodshed and murder.

B) Commemoration and Remembrance Sites

Transfiguring during these modifications was the construction of remembrance and commemoration
sites at the mutiny landscape. There wasn’t a certain agenda followed in the spatial distribution of the
mutiny dead. A few men were buried near the battle arena where they were killed, for instances,
Captain G.C.M. Barnett and Lieutenant William Murray was buried in the south of the ridge and Pir
Ghaib observatory on the Ridge respectively. A same pattern was not followed in every case, such as
who was killed by the rebels at Badli-ki-Sarai, buried near the military cemetery. The British ‘hero’
in the siege of Delhi, Brigadier-General John Nicholson was interred to the Kashmiri Gate cemetery.
Moreover, Nicholson was memorialized in other ways as well. One of the commanding officers,
Major General Sir Henry Barnard was buried in a Military cemetery.

They were the epitaphs on the gravestones and memorial placards that showed how the army wanted
their dead to be memorialized. These epitaphs contained the ranks of the soldier, the condition in
which they died and the person who inscribed the message. Details of the death were sometimes
omitted when the commanding officer had died in a less glorious way. However, the epitaphs on the
graves of Barnard and Nicholson were different from other memorial inscriptions. Many Indian
soldiers have subordinate or no mention in the British-oriented commemorations, therefore, these
commemorations developed a sense of hierarchy.
Apart from these graves, some incidents that were crucial from the British perspective were
memorialized. The rebels, when attacked the city of Delhi on 11 May, blown up the Expense
Magazine situated at the south of Kashmiri gate. The two gates of the Magazine, which was
remained all of it, became a memorial monument, which inscribed the memory of the ‘nine resolute
Englishmen’ who fired it. Then, in July, the Britishers reconquered the Ridge and returned to British
cantonments after winning the battle of Badli-ki-Sarai. This victory of July was commemorated by
erecting a 3m-high red sandstone column at Azadpur, near the battlefield.

The most comprehensive memorial was with reference to the assault on the city in September 1857,
the inscriptions were fixed on a half a dozen or so siege batteries that had been used in attack over
the rebels and were located across the alignment of the Ridge. Another memorial, in the context of
September 1857, in which even the death of soldiers in an unsuccessful military action was, also,
commemorated. For instance, a memorial was set up near the grave of Captain Barnett, which
marked the loses that the Bengal Fusiliers suffered near this spot.

The civilians- especially women and children- who were killed by the rebels were not
commemorated by the Britishers. Then, with the initiatives of the Baptist Mission, funds were
collected to build a church, known as St. Stephens Memorial Church, in the memory of those English
and Indian Christians- who lost their lives in the rebellion. Apart from the building of a new Church,
the memory was various civilians was immortalized, such as a tablet of Dr. Chiman Lal, who was
killed because of his faith, was erected.

The blowing up of the Kashmiri gate, which had allowed the direct passage to the city of Delhi was
considered as a crucial incident for the Britishers. Many soldiers were wounded or were killed in this
incident. So, it was preserved and after two decades a tablet was fixed, which contained the
information of the attack and the names of Indian and English soldiers who were died in that
explosion. The other memorial was the Telegraph Memorial, although not in the vicinity of where
the original incident happened. Lastly, the mutiny memorial that was erected in 1863. It contained
the list of the regiments that were present, action that were fought by the Delhi Field Force and
comprehensive narrative of the revolt.

THE SOCIAL LANDSCAPE OF DELHI AFTER THE REVOLT

The city of Delhi, known for its literary and cultural vibrancy, was dead. ‘What can I write,’ groaned
Ghalib, who disliked the sepoys from the very starting and described the pre-revolt years of the city
as ‘last spring’.

‘The life of Delhi depends on the Fort, Delhi College, Chandni Chowk,
the daily gatherings at the Jamuna Bridge and the annual Gulfaroshan.
When all these five things are no longer in there, how can Delhi live?’

Before the revolt of 1857, there was sociability between Hindus and Muslims, at the court and at
Delhi college, at the gatherings in Chandni Chowk and Sa’dullah Chowk, at festivals, especially,
Basant and Phulwalon ki Sair and Musha’aras. With the palace and the Delhi college being ruined in
the revolt, the weekly Musha’aras held no more; they were happening only in private houses. As
Ghalib said, the entertainment was ‘cheap’ and democratic. After 1857, the Delhi was nearly cleared
of its inhabitants. Then, in January 1858, only the Hindus were allowed to return the city, but the
‘Muslim’ houses were still unoccupied. Thus, the social landscape of Delhi before 1857- which was
a mix of many North Indian ethnicities with most its areas still covered by Muslims, was changed.

The city of Shahjahanabad was the residence of the city’s pre-eminent inhabitants who ranked above
everyone else in the social hierarchy whereas after the revolt of 1857, only money and power were
the chief conditions to survive in the city of Delhi (neither social hierarchy nor literary talent). Also,
before 1857, the palace was not isolated from the city, it was closely integrated with the vibrant
social and cultural life of the Delhi. The Diwan-e Khas and Diwan e-Aam were built for the emperor
to attend the courtiers and general public respectively, which allowed the emperor to interact with its
subjects. The Jama Masjid was, also, under the sphere of the King. Thus, the social life of Delhi
linked with the palace, which was situated in the heart of town, was sidelined with the confiscation
of the Fort by the Britishers.

The institutionalisation of Delhi College propagated the emergence of the Urdu political press and
the introduction of Western and Oriental education, came to represent what C. F Andrews called as
‘the Delhi Renaissance’. A distinguished groups of teachers and students had become the part of the
college and made it a multi-denominational community space. The chief innovation of the college
was that all subjects were taught in the vernacular language, Urdu. Moreover, the Delhi College
initiated the publication of the periodicals, which contained the developments in science and
technology, international events and popular works of literature. The pro-education growth stance
and social connectivity among distinguished groups of students and teachers were shattered with the
destruction of Delhi College during the ‘Revolt of 1857’.

The confiscation of lands by the Britishers transformed the Delhi’s social geography. As in
retribution, a large number of plots of agricultural land were confiscated: Alipur, Chandrawal, Kotha,
Mubarakpur, Mehrauli, Indraprastha, Palam, Raisina, and Wazirabad were some of them. Among
these villages, two-third of the land was confiscated in Chandrawal, while more than half of the lands
were taken away from the villages of Alipur and Wazirpur. The cause for the confiscation of land in
a large number from Chandrawal because it was the village that plundered the cantonments while the
more than half of the village lands from Alipur as is proprietors had plundered the roads during war.

CONCLUSION

‘Where is Delhi?’ moaned Ghalib. ‘By God is not a city now. It is a camp. It is a cantonment….’. In
an introspective mood he wrote, ‘We had only one thing left the wish to reconstruct the city/
Everything was plundered’. After twenty years of the revolt, the Ghalib’s wish was confirmed with
the setting of the fist Imperial Assemblage in 1877, even Calcutta was the capital. Indeed, the
assemblage was part of a policy to develop better ties with Indians, also, the occasion was used to
make specific announcements aimed to undo the hatred imposed on Muslim sentiments after 1857.
This involved the reopening of Zinat ul-Mosque and the Fatehpuri Mosque for public worship.

After twenty-five years later, a second Coronation Darbar was held to coronate the King Edward Ⅶ
as the emperor of India. This coronation resulted in undoing some of the destruction by the Britishers
within the walled city. Dismantling the signs of colonial violence, and commencement of the
architectural works within the Fort, however, coincided with preparation for Darbar. Also, it was
done by the Britishers to maintain their stability in tacit acquiescence with the Indians.

The physical and social landscape of the Delhi, which was brutally destroyed by the Britishers after
the ‘Revolt of 1857’, had started restructuring after some years of revolt. Moreover, there was a
steady increase in the population from 1860s with the construction of railways, revival of
handicrafts, Delhi’s largest share in the volume of trade, cheaper plots and rising in the
accommodation facilities attracted people to live in Delhi. Though the social life of Delhi was not
much rich as during the pre-revolt years, but there were some improvements.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Lahiri, Nayanjot. (2003). “Commemorating and Remembering 1857: The Revolt in Delhi and its
Afterlife,’ World Archaeology, vol. 35, no.1, pp. 35-60

2. Gupta, Narayani. (1991). Delhi between the Empires: 1803-1931. Delhi: OUP, pp. 25-30
3. Dalrymple, William, (2006). The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi: Penguin/ Viking, pp.
193, 391. (Chapter 6 “The Day of Ruin and Riot” and Chapter “To Shoot Every Soul”).

4. Farooqui, Amar. (2013). Zafar and the Raj: Anglo-Mughal Delhi, 1800-1850, Delhi: Primus
Books, pp. 27, (Chap.6: “The Palace and the City).