C-9 Tale of two cities: Old and New Delhi
Apart from it being a mere city or place of interest, Delhi is also a feeling and a sentiment.
The city holds a great deal of national importance because of the presence of national institutions, and at the same time has a patriotic significance because of the mammoth role it played towards contributing India, its long lost feeling of independence and unity. It exists as a space that disrupts and supplements the idea of the nation as a homogenous cultural community, as quoted by Ashcroft in 2011. Delhi, as the nation’s governmental heart, has become the most urgent sign of transition from the national capital city to a globalized megacity today.
Englishmen have not been kind to or celebratory about India’s cities. Apart from the glitz and glamour that this city provides, it also harbours an ongoing identity crisis which can be attributed to our colonial rulers. The British successfully created a form of “hybridism” between past norms and culture and the necessity of the acceptance of new British culture to survive. This gives birth to concepts of nationality and transnationality. In the colonial paradigm, the city features as a place of wary governance, concealed violence and suppressed terror. Indeed, if cities in the Global North have often been regarded historically as structured and ordered signs of civility and modernity, the cradles of liberal democracy and a civic culture, while the cities of the subcontinent have more often been relegated to the other end of a developmental scale and dismissed as metropolises of “mismanagement”, “excess” and “overpopulation”. This emphasizes the distinction that the British drew around “savage” and “civilized”.
Their modern “upliftment” of cities like Delhi, which still remains the epicenter of politics in India stemmed from their conceited belief called “white man’s burden”. Delhi had been the “center” since the Mughal period. What the British did was to make the other areas feel “marginalized” in order to dictate their ideas on development.
The grandeur of Delhi that cherishes today is a gift of Sir Edward Lutens. who was responsible for much of the architectural design and building during the period of the British Raj. Sir Edwin Lutyens, the architect of Delhi, designed 4 bungalows in the Rashtrapati Bhavan Estate, (Viceroy House Estate); now, these bungalows lie on the Mother Teresa Crescent (then Willingdon Crescent). Lutyens, apart from designing the Viceroy’s House, designed large government buildings and was involved with town planning. The official residence of the Prime Minister of India is at 7, Lok Kalyan Marg a complex of five bungalows, spread over 12 acres is in the Letens’ Delhi. This reinforces the idea that despite gaining independence, we still function within the paradigms set by the British. The term “Lutens’ Delhi” also refers to the English speaking chauffeur driven elite in Delhi, who have a say in the policy. They are known for their leftist views and are bashful of right-wingers. It is said that although the British have left, their ideology still persists and breathes through the residents of this place, as liberalism and dependence on institutions are considered essentially colonial features. Marxists on the other hand, stigmatize this Delhi as an expression of dominance — dependence relationship of colonialism. Thus this Delhi is believed to be acting as a vehicle of Imperialism.
Colin Amery once said, “The design of this city is concerned with the architectures of power”.
Despite this prevailing modernist direction for India’s architecture, revival buildings of the 1950s demonstrate India’s negotiation with and construction of its past at a crucial time in the formation of national identity. The Ashok Hotel and the Vigyan Bhavan in Delhi differ from earlier revivals; they exist within the context of Nehruvian rewriting of Indian history to highlight particular moments of unity and religious harmony in the subcontinent’s past. Thus, Delhi is an interesting city as it clings to its colonial past along with siding with “global modernity” which is also dictated mostly by Britain.
