Nicole Stevenson

Dr. Marsh
History 430
Imperialism in India and the Construction of New Delhi
y !"!! the ritish had #een intimately involved on the Indian su#continent for
more than two centuries. $rom their #ase in Calcutta% they had slowly &ained influence
across the whole of India not only su#'u&atin& the Indian people% #ut also removin& the
Dutch and the $rench from the country. India has #een called (the 'ewel in the crown)
of their far*flun& empire. +espondin& to a sur&e of nationalism in this most important of
colonies they chose at this moment to move the capital of ritish India from Calcutta to
Delhi. ,he construction of the new capital% which was to #e called New Delhi% #ecame
full of political meanin&. ,he desi&n of the new city #ecame a sym#ol of the stru&&le of
the imperialist ritish and their chan&in& vision on how to maintain rule over their most
important and most populous colony. - clash of opinions a#out whether to incorporate
the architecture of the con.uered people or to enforce a classical /uropean style many
thousands of miles from /n&land came to mirror the stru&&le of the Indian people a&ainst
their colonial rulers. In many ways% the construction of New Delhi was the #e&innin& of
the end for ritish Imperialism. ,he colonial rulers were #uildin& a monument to their
rule of a people who were on their way to overthrowin& them.
efore the ritish came to India% the city of Delhi was renowned for its #eauty
and architecture. Nonetheless% the city was already !00 years past the pea1 of its
opulence% havin& #een sac1ed in the !2
th
century #y 3ersia% which had removed much of
the city4s treasure% includin& the emperor4s throne. ,he city was dominated #y a
!
ma&nificent palace called the +ed $ort% which had #een the home of the Mu&hal
emperors until !205. Delhi had #een little chan&ed #y many years of ritish influence
and was architecturally very much a Mu&hal city up until that time. -ccordin& to
Dalyrymple
!
% (In !206% ritish additions within the walls of Delhi were limited to a
domed church% a classical +esidency #uildin& recently converted into the Delhi Colle&e%
and a stron&ly fortified ma&a7ine% all of which stood to the north of the $ort and out of
si&ht of the procession.) - disastrous mutiny #y the re#els from the army and an&ry
citi7ens in !205 #rou&ht destruction to the city and an end to centuries of Mu&hal rule in
Delhi. -fter a short campai&n% the ritish army and loyal sepoys were a#le to defeat the
re#els and deposed and e8iled 9afar% the last Mu&hal emperor.
6
Much of the splendor of
the city was reduced to ruins #y the fi&htin& within the city. -fter the mutiny% the +ed
$ort was further dama&ed #y the ritish army% which used it as a #arrac1s.
Delhi was a politically interestin& choice for a city from which to &overn the
empire. Historically in a land of many reli&ions and lan&ua&e% Delhi had #een a city in
which these elements coe8isted easily. :hile the Mu&hal emperors were Muslim% the
city was home to a lar&e percenta&e of Hindus. ,he tolerance of the Muslim rulers for
their Hindu citi7ens was le&endary. 9afar% the last Mu&hal emperor% wrote in one of his
many poems that Hinduism and Islam (share the same essence.)
3
,he emperor also felt a
special responsi#ility to his Hindu su#'ects and was fond of participatin& in many of their
reli&ious festivals. :hile Mu&hal Delhi was a model for Hindu*Muslim relations% the
future state of these relations would deteriorate throu&hout the final phase of ritish rule
and afterwards.
!
:illiam Darymple% The Last Mughal% ;<inta&e oo1s% New =or1 6002> 04
6
Dalrymple% The Last Mughal 30!*300
3
Dalrymple% The Last Mughal, 55
6
y !"!!% the relations of the ritish with the Muslims and Hindus had declined
and several ritish moves had made caused pro#lems #etween the reli&ions. ?ne very
important move made in !"00 was to partition en&al% which was lar&ely Hindu. -s a
result% the Hindu were outnum#ered and lost power #y #ein& split into two re&ions. ,he
partition raised nationalist feelin&s #y the Hindu en&alis% which led to anti*&overnment
violence. ,he future 1in& of /n&land @eor&e < had visited India soon after the partition
and was sympathetic to the Indian point of view
4
. He had #ecome aware on his visit that
risin& tensions #etween Hindus and Muslims were a pro#lem that needed to #e resolved
for peaceful ritish rule to continue. :hen he #ecame Ain& in !"!0% @eor&e < tried to
soothe the an&er of the en&al #y reunitin& it in a way meant to appease the Hindus
0
. ,he
new ritish <iceroy in India Bord Hardin&e saw his main tas1 as restorin& cohesion to
the many races% reli&ions and classes ;castes> that made up colonial India
C
.
However% to reach out to the Muslims% a decision to move the capital from
Calcutta in en&al to Delhi was envisioned
5
. ,hese decisions were made in secret and
were finally announced to the pu#lic when Ain& @eor&e came to India to #e crowned as
/mperor of India. Bord Hardin&e wrote% (Delhi is still a name to con'ure with. It is
intimately associated in the minds of Hindus with sacred le&endsD ,o the Mohamedans
it would a source of un#ounded &ratification to see the ancient capital of the Mu&hals
restored to its proud position as seat of the /mpire.)
2
Despite ma1in& the announcement
4
-ndreas <olwahsen% Imperial Delhi ;New =or1E 3restel 6006>% !!
0
/dited #yE Clayre 3ercy and Fane +idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady
Emily% "0
C
Christopher Hussey% The Life of Sir Edwin Lutyens ;Country Bife Bimited% Bondon
!"00> 635
5
+o#ert @rant Irvin&, Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi% ;=ale
Gniversity 3ress% Bondon %!"2!>!2*60
2
,homas Metcalf% n Imperial !ision ;Gniversity of California 3ress% !"2"> 6!!
3
of the move as part of the coronation of Ain& @eor&e < as /mperor% the move of the
capital from Calcutta was nonetheless e8tremely controversial throu&hout India and
/n&land.
"

,he new capital was to #e #uilt outside of Delhi and called New Delhi. Since the
move of the capital was lar&ely political it is not surprisin& that the desi&n of the city
would also #e tied to the politics of &overnin& the /mpire. ,he new capital was to #e
desi&ned on a #lan1 canvas and was &oin& to #e carried out on a &rand scale. ,his city
was to #e a new one that would represent the power and ma'esty of the ritish /mpire in
this most important of colonies. Not only was the move from Calcutta to Delhi an
important sym#olic move politically% #ut it also allowed the ritish to create a clear
sym#ol of the rule #y the ritish Crown over the many princes% mahra'ahs% ni7ams% and
states that comprised the ritish +a'. ,he power of the ritish /mpire was to #e captured
in stone and put on display for not only the lar&e population of India% #ut also for the rest
of the world. ,he 'o# at hand was descri#ed #y Sir @eor&e irdwell as follows (It is not
a cantonment we have to lay out in Delhi% #ut an Imperial City*the sym#ol of the ritish
+a' in India*and it must li1e +ome #e #uilt for an eternity.)
!0
,he ritish had clear
desi&ns on rulin& India for centuries% for the secretary of state Bord Crewe declared the
new capital would represent (an unfalterin& determination to maintain ritish rule in
India.)
!!

:hile politics influenced the move from Calcutta to Delhi% the actual site for the
construction of the new capital was also su#'ect to the same political pressures. -n
e8tensive search of the Delhi area yielded two sites. ?ne was chosen for hi&hly political
"
Irvin&% Indian SummerE Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi 3!
!0
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi% !2
!!
Metcalf% n Imperial !ision, 6!!
4
reasons. ,he (+id&e) north of the city was a site that was e8tremely important to the
ritish sentiments. It had #een the scene of intense fi&htin& durin& the mutiny of !205
and held stron& emotional power for the ritish.
!6
However% the site itself was not
suita#le for the construction of the capital #ecause of hi&h land costs and insufficient
space. It would have #een a stron& and may#e even despotic political statement to #uild
New Delhi on a spot where the first lar&e*scale mutiny a&ainst ritish +ule had #een
crushed. Nonetheless% the (+id&e) proved unsuita#le% and a site to the south of Delhi was
chosen. ,his site too had political implications. ,he site was hi&h in elevation which
assured that it would #e a#le to #e seen from a distance and would have a commandin&
view of the surroundin& area. ,his accomplished one of the &oals of #uildin& a new
capital #y ma1in& the &reat statement of colonial rule plain to see. ,he site additionally
had more availa#le land% which was less e8pensive than that surroundin& the (+id&e).
!3
,he head architect for the pro'ect was /dwin Butyens who was &iven the tas1 of
tryin& to 'u&&le the political interests of the Ain&% <iceroy% and the various Indian princes
with his own opinions on architecture. Butyens had never attempted a pro'ect of this si7e%
#ut saw that this was his opportunity to #uild somethin& for which he would #e lon&
remem#ered. ,he #attle lines were drawn over the style of the pro'ect. ?n one hand%
many /n&lishmen #elieved that it would #e impossi#le to capture the empire in any other
way than in classic /uropean style. ,he opinions of the Ain& and the <iceroy were
clearly in favor of an Indian styled architecture inspired #y the old Delhi. $or his part%
Butyens e8pressed his feelin&s a#out the politicians wei&hin& in on his 'o# (Hardin&e and
Chirol #oth say that the opinion of the 3rinces in India is almost entirely in favour of an
!6
/dited #yE Clayre 3ercy and Fane +idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady
Emily ;Hamish Hamilton% Bondon% !"20> 5!
!3
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily, 56
0
Indian style. ut I say what on earth can an Indian +a' 1now a#out architecture and its
ethics.)
!4

:hile the common man in /n&land may have #een #iased towards a /uropean
styled Indian capital% many former and current &overnmental officials in /n&land who
had lived and wor1ed in India supported Hardin&e in his desire for an (Indic) New Delhi.
,heir feelin&s may have #een as much political as aesthetic. $ormer Indian civil servants
/. . Havell and $. ?. ?ertel ar&ued stron&ly #oth in pu#lic and #efore 3arliament for an
Indian inspired architecture for political reasons. ,hey felt that a New Delhi% which was
#uilt #y Indian craftsmen and ritish architects (would prove that Indian and ritish
imperial interests were not anta&onistic% #ut really and truly identical.) ,his would not
mean the end of an empire and the #e&innin& of self*rule% #ut simply a different 1ind of
empire. ?ertel wrote that the new capital si&nified that India would #e ruled with (the
consent of the people and for their #enefit) rather than #y) Imperial sway.)
!0

It is interestin& to note that many of those who favored an ?riental style over the
Classical style were not as sympathetic to the Indian people as mi&ht #e e8pected from
their position. ?ne of the #i&&est proponents of usin& elements of Indian elements in the
desi&n of New Delhi was Her#ert a1er who had 'oined Butyens as co*architect of the
New Delhi pro'ect. He and many other #elievers in what Fane +idley called ?rientalism
were not really tryin& to achieve an empire of consent. ,hey saw true differences
#etween the peoples of the east and of the west. She notes that ?rientalism divides men
into (them) and (us) and teaches that the /uropeans will always have the advanta&e over
!4
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi !00
!0
Metcalf% n Imperial !ision, 6!C
C
the ?riental. ,his 1ind of attitude from the rulin& class ensures that relations #etween the
/n&lish and the Indians will never ta1e place on a level playin& field.
,he two architects who desi&ned New Delhi were very different people% #ut #e&an
the pro'ect as friends and ended it as enemies. :hen he was pic1ed to desi&n the new
capital in !"!6 at the a&e of 43% Butyens had already #ecome the most famous architect in
/n&land and had desi&ned many #uildin&s and houses. He stron&ly #elieved in the
classical style of architecture. He was very dismissive of the Indian people and hated the
architecture he found in India. Butyens saw the people as (children) and even referred to
Delhi as (edlampore). ;:ilhide% 4!*46> - lon& time friend of Butyens. Her#ert a1er
was 00 years old in !"!6 and was also renowned in /n&land. He had #een in South
-frica for the previous 60 years where he had &reat e8perience in desi&nin& colonial
&overnment #uildin&s% which was somethin& that Butyens had not yet tried. ;Irvin&% "0>
In fact he had 'ust finished the construction of the Gnion uildin&s in South -frica when
the New Delhi opportunity came to him. Gnli1e Butyens% a1er had a pu#lic school
education and was descri#ed as an architect who (spea1s not only li1e a poet% #ut li1e a
statesman.) ;Irvin& "C> ein& more politically astute% a1er was more open than Butyens
to incorporatin& Indian architectural elements into the desi&n for the new city.
Nonetheless% a1er was a firm supporter of the use of architecture as a sym#ol of ritish
Imperial power which was somethin& that had influenced his wor1 in South -frica as
well. ;Irvin& 652> :hile the &iant pro'ect which lay ahead of them eventually claimed
their friendship% the city which the former friends #uilt to&ether was a colossal
architectural achievement.
5
Durin& the time #etween the mutiny of !205 and the decision to move the capital
from Calcutta to Delhi% a style of architecture com#inin& Indian architecture with /n&lish
architects had #een widely used throu&hout the country. It came to #e 1nown as Indo*
Saracenic desi&n.
!C
Indo*Saracenic desi&n com#ined elements of #oth Muslim and Hindu
architecture alon& with some elements of @othic desi&n. Many of the most important
structures in India were desi&ned in this style in the pre*!"!! time period. Her#ert a1er
who wanted to include Indian elements in the desi&n of New Delhi4s #uildin& was firmly
convinced that Indo*Saracenic desi&n was unfit for the new capital. He claimed that
while it may (e8press the charm and fascination of India% it has not the constructive and
&eometric .ualities to em#ody the idea of law and order which has #een produced from
chaos #y the ritish -dministration.)
!5
Not surprisin&ly when this was pu#lished in the
,imes of Bondon in !"!6 it was well received. ,oday that sounds #oth condescendin&
and politically incorrect% #ut a1er was e8pressin& a stron&ly held feelin& in ritain that
the ritish presence was the only thin& holdin& India from fallin& into total chaos. a1er
also put into words the sentiment that architecture could ma1e a political statement%
which could #e understood #y its users.
Butyens himself was a firm #eliever in the classical /uropean style architecture.
He saw the classic desi&n as #ein& handed down from the @ree1s to the +omans and then
to the renaissance Italians and later reinterpreted for the ritish #y renowned architect
Christopher :ren. Butyens #elieved that his role to play in the #uildin& of New Delhi
was to interpret this tradition for India. Nonetheless% he reali7ed that Hardin&e #elieved
that a /uropean city #uilt at New Delhi would #e considered a (&rave political #lunder.)
!2
!C
Metcalf% n Imperial !ision, 05*!04
!5
Metcalf% n Imperial !ision 666
!2
Irvin&% Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi, !06
2
It was after all the ta8es of the Indian people who were #ein& as1ed to pay for this new
capital. $urthermore% the climate and conditions of India would also re.uire some
deviations from pure Classicism. 3rivately Butyens saw Indians as (children) with
(wea1 intellects) and claimed that no (real Indian architecture) e8isted. $urthermore%
Butyens even found fault with that most famous of all Indian monuments% the ,a'
Mahal.
!"
,hus despite these early reservations a#out India% its people and its architecture%
Butyens would #e forced to ma1e some concessions towards includin& Indian elements
into his favored classical style.
,he de#ate over the style of the capital was a#out more than stone and #lueprints.
It mirrored /n&land4s own de#ate a#out imperialism and what role ritain should #e
playin& in India. $or most of the ritish occupation of India% ritain had e8ploited the
natural resources and people of India for hu&e financial &ains. y !"!! many had called
for ritain to act more as a careta1er for the Indian people. a1er4s contentions that the
ritish presence in India was essential to 1eep the country out of chaos were not unusual
nor were Butyens4 sentiments a#out the intelli&ence and a#ility to rule of the Indian
people. ,he new capital was &oin& to #e a sym#ol to India and the world that ritain
ruled India. ,he e8tent to which Indians themselves would participate in and #enefit
from the post*!"!! +a' was the .uestion that remained to #e answered.
-s the city &rew closer to actual construction% Butyens #e&an to study the layouts
of ma'or /uropean cities. ?f the modern cities% 3aris is perhaps the most influential and
compara#le to the layout of New Delhi. In addressin& the layout of the city <olwahsen
writes% (In the particular political conte8t of imperial ritain% it was a matter of which
!"
/li7a#eth :ilhide% Sir Edwin Lutyens: Designing in the English Tradition ;Harry
-#rams% New =or1% 6000> 4C
"
motifs% perspectives and spatial orders most effectively illustrated the ritish Crown4s
claims to leadership.)
60
a1er was even clearer when he wrote to Butyens that Delhi
(must not #e Indian% nor ritish nor +oman% #ut it must #e Imperial.) :hen Harlin&e
and rown saw Butyens4 initial plans for the city% they had no pro#lems with the overall
desi&n% #ut su&&ested one ma'or chan&e to ma1e the &overnmental #uildin&s more
Imperial. In the middle of the area planned for the city was a moderately si7ed hill.
3lacin& the ma'or #uildin&s on top of the hill would &ive them a sense of &randeur and
power. ,his re.uired considera#le wor1 to flatten the top of the hill to provide a level
area for the central #uildin&s.
6!
In some sense the Imperial #uildin&s of New Delhi have
commonality with the famous #uildin&s of the raised plain of the -cropolis in -thens% the
#irthplace of the Classism that Butyens was tryin& to e8tend in New Delhi. It is ironic
that it was not Butyens who had ori&inally planned it that way. 3lacin& the #uildin&s of
power a#ove the rest of the city was also found in ancient +ome. ,he ritish imperialists
who held power over India pro#a#ly found it very fittin& to evo1e ima&es of +ome in the
new capital since it is the +oman /mpire that the ritish most often compared themselves
to.
Butyens4 New Delhi was to #e a city of &ardens and of water. It was to have the
clean strai&ht lines of a eau8*-rts city. ,he eau8*-rts style is named for the famous
/cole des eau8*-rts in 3aris where artists and architects were tau&ht the virtues of order
and harmony in their wor1. ,he #oulevards are wide and lined with trees. 3arallel to and
alon& the main road there are lon& ponds. -t the end of this lon& road are the main
&overnmental #uildin&s risin& a#ove the city on +aisina Hill. ,he main #oulevard was to
60
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi 33
6!
Irvin&% Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi, C4
!0
#e called Ain&s :ay and was to #e two miles lon&. Gnli1e the Champs d4/lesyee in
3aris or other main #oulevards in /uropean cities% there were no #uildin&s to #e #uilt
directly on Ain&s :ay.
66
,he feelin& of a &arden city was to #e felt throu&h the lon&
ponds and many trees. ,he area surroundin& the main part of the city was to contain
#un&alows distanced from the center accordin& to a social hierarchy% #ut the e8pected
population density was only 2 peopleHper Hectare as compared to Delhi with 600.
63

Commercial #uildin&s were not to #e found here on Butyen4s plans for New Delhi. -lon&
with Ain&s :ay there were other strai&ht streets comin& off at re&ular an&les to form a
city that is #ased on he8a&ons and he8a&rams.
64
,hese would #e for many uses% #ut many
would #e residences for officials and princes of the ritish +a'. ?ne of the most
interestin& aspects of the Ain&s :ay part of New Delhi is its resem#lance to the mall in
:ashin&ton D.C. ,he last thin& that any ritish Imperialist wanted to do in #uildin& a
city to cele#rate its rule of India would #e to #rin& up the memory of the first colony
which escaped the rule of the ritish /mpire.
Butyens and a1er split up the desi&ns of the three main #uildin&s% which were to
#e #uilt on the acropolis on +aisina Hill.
60
Butyens was to desi&n the @overnment House%
which later was renamed to <iceroy4s House. ,his was to #e the focal point of the entire
pro'ect. @overnment house was to #e to New Delhi what the :hite House is to
:ashin&ton. It would #e the home of the <iceroy and it is where all of the important
meetin&s and state events would #e held. Butyens planned a hu&e #uildin& of &reat
66
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily %56
63
David @ordon% "lanning Twentieth #entury #apital #ities%;+outled&e% New =or1%
6004> !25
64
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily, 53
60
+oderic1 @radi&e% Edwin Lutyens: r$hite$t Laureate% ;@eor&e -llen I Gnwin%
Bondon% !"2C> C"
!!
len&th for the #ac1 portion of the acropolis. ,he actual si7e of the @overnment House
was #uilt to the same si7e as uc1in&ham 3alace in Bondon.
6C
-t the center of this was to
#e a &reat dome% which was created to #e seen from a &reat distance as visitors came up
the lon& Ain&s :ay. -t this time Butyens did not yet reco&ni7e that havin& placed the
@overnment House at the #ac1 of a raised plateau would ma1e this impossi#le.
65

a1er4s tas1 was to desi&n the two #uildin&s of the Secretariat. ,hese were to #e
e8act replicas of one another and stand at the front of the acropolis on +aisina Hill.
,hese were meant to house all of the department secretaries and council mem#ers of the
different se&ments of the &overnment. Since the ritish considered these positions very
important% these officers needed to #e housed in impressive #uildin&s that were e.ual to
their status. y havin& all three of these #uildin&s on the hill% it sent a si&nal that the
whole &overnment shared in the words of a1er a (common di&nity).
62
a1er #elieved
that #y &ivin& the #ureaucrats of the /mpire such lofty #uildin&s that they would #e
inspired to lead the country in the same fashion. -s desi&ned #y a1er% the two identical
Secretariats were to #e three stories tall and over a .uarter mile lon&.
,he tas1 of #uildin& New Delhi #e&an in !"!3 and lasted all the way to !"3!.
/arly estimates of the cost of #uildin& the city ori&inally thou&ht to #e 6 to 3 million
pounds and len&th of time needed for completion of the pro'ect turned out to #e fat
underestimated. Butyens and a1er initially #elieved the pro'ect could #e completed #y
!"!C #ut #y !"!C Butyens admitted the cost would #e around 2.0 million pounds.
6"
In the
end the pro'ect4s cost was over !0 million pounds.
30
,he scale of the underta1in& was
6C
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi 652
65
:ilhide% Sir Edwin Lutyens: Designing in the English Tradition, 46
62
Irvin&% Indian Summer: Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi, 65"
6"
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily% 6"0
30
Hussey% The Life of Sir Edwin Lutyens 400
!6
un#elieva#le. ,here were twenty*seven #ric1 ma1in& factories #uilt to support New
Delhi% which produced more than 500 million #ric1s. +ailways were #uilt specially for
transportin& the 300%000 cu#ic feet of mar#le used in the pro'ect. It was also estimated
that the stone yards for the pro'ect processed more than 3.0 million cu#ic feet of stone.
3!

Many stru&&les pla&ued the pro'ect and none was more important than :orld :ar II.
:hile the war was fou&ht in /urope% the effect on the #ud&et that could #e allotted for the
#uildin& was dramatic. 3ro&ress on the pro'ect slowed considera#ly durin& this time.
y !"!C a personal #attle had #e&un #etween the lon& time friends Butyens and
a1er. -s the acropolis was flattened and construction of the Ain&s :ay #e&an to ta1e
shape% Butyens finally reali7ed that puttin& his @overnment House at the #ac1 of the
acropolis would hide it from view as visitors moved up the road towards the #uildin&s.
36

:orse yet% he reco&ni7ed that instead of the whole #uildin& appearin& in view that the
dome he had planned as the centerpiece would appear and disappear alon& the way.
33

Since this #uildin& was &oin& to #e Butyens crownin& achievement as an architect% he
ar&ued for chan&in& the slope of the road so that it could #e seen in the way that he had
intended it. Butyens fou&ht for his vision% #ut a1er and others ar&ued that the increased
cost of this made the chan&es impossi#le. a1er and Butyens were never close friends
a&ain.
-s construction continued and the :ar ended% several other important #uildin&s
and memorials were #rou&ht into the pro'ect. In !"!" the Monta&u*Chelmsford +eform
called for a three*cham#er form of &overnment for India. ,he desi&ners of New Delhi
now faced the .uestion of what 1ind of #uildin& to #uild and where to #uild it. ,here was
3!
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi 650*65C
36
Irvin&% Indian SummerE Lutyens, Baker and Imperial Delhi%!00*!0"
33
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi !4C
!3
no place to put the #uildin& on the acropolis so a site close to the Secretariat to the left of
the @overnment House was the choice.
34
a1er desi&ned a novel circular #uildin& with
three circular cham#ers housed within it. In the middle was a lar&er domed circular
cham#er where all three cham#ers could meet to&ether.
30
However% innovative and
#eautiful the #uildin& was it was also situated #elow the three main &overnment #uildin&s
on the acropolis.
3C
,his can #e seen as a direct representation of the relationship of the
rulers of India who occupy the #uildin&s on the acropolis loo1in& down on the Indians
themselves. It was a very imperialistic act to place the #uildin&s in this way% #ut at the
same time the esta#lishment of a le&islature was a step forward for the Indian people.
,he hi&h cost of the war in lives and the participation of Indian soldiers in the war
necessitated #uildin& of a memorial to those lost in the war. Butyens too1 responsi#ility
for this tas1. ,he memorial was to #e called the -ll India Memorial -rch and would
mar1 the memory of 50%000 who died in :orld :ar II.
35
Butyens #uilt a &i&antic arch%
which was placed at the far end of Ain&s :ay directly opposite of the @overnment
House. ,he form of the arch is somethin& li1e the -rc de ,riomphe and alon& with the
wide #oulevard of the Champs de /leysee #ein& somewhat li1e Ain&s :ay reminds the
visitor to New Delhi of 3aris.
32

,he finished product of Butyens and a1er was shown to the world in !"3!.
Gnfortunately for them it was at the hei&ht of a &lo#al depression and the cele#ration of
their achievement was not as spectacular as mi&ht have #een hoped for. ,hey did%
however% issue posta&e stamps featurin& the -rch and the Be&islature in honor of the
34
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily, 5"
30
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi 660*66!
3C
@ordon% "lanning Twentieth #entury #apital #ities% !2C
35
Hussey% The Life of Sir Edwin Lutyens 40C
32
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi 54*50
!4
Inau&uration of New Delhi.
3"
:hen seen from the air in #lac1 and white photo&raphy% it
seems to #e a very /uropean city. ,he style of the <iceroy4s House ;@overnment House>
appears very classical. However% despite his early reservations a#out Indian -rchitecture%
Butyens included many (Indic) features% which can #e seen on closer inspection.
40
$or
e8ample% he includes elephants throu&hout the whole desi&n especially at entrances. ,wo
imposin& fountains include a &iant sna1e risin& out and sprayin& 'ets into a pool. Mu&hal
styled chattris% which are small pavilions% are found placed on top of various domes and
corners throu&hout #oth Butyens and a1er4s #uildin&s.
4!
oth also adopted the cha''a%
which is an overhan&in& style roof.
46
,hese roofs protect the #uildin&s from the hot
Indian Sun. ,he lar&est (Indic) feature of the acropolis is the Mu&hal @arden% which is
directly #ehind the <iceroy4s House. Butyens directly #orrowed his inspiration from the
&ardens of the Mu&hal emperors in desi&nin& many acres of #eautiful landscape and
fountains. ,hese &ardens and &rounds were so lar&e that a staff of over 400 was re.uired
to care for them.
43

It is ironic that in !"!! the ritish /mpire in India had less than 40 years left to
rule. :ithout this 1nowled&e% the rulers hired Butyens and a1er to #uild an imposin&
capital out of Indian materials and with Indian wor1ers doin& almost all of the la#or. ,his
mirrored the Indian /mpire itself with /n&land &ettin& the most of the #enefit from the
wor1 of the Indian people. ,he city was meant to impress the people of India that the
ritish were the rulers of the country and that they imposed order on the city and the
3"
Christopher ,ad&ell% %istory of r$hite$ture in India ;3haidon 3ress% Bondon% !""0>
6"C
40
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi !5"*!24
4!
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi% !22
46
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily, 2!
43
<olwahsen% Imperial Delhi !65
!0
country. In the end the #eautiful city of Butyens too1 as lon& to #uild as the ritish
occupied it. y !"42% the people who had provided the materials and the muscle to #uild
the massive monument to ritish Imperialism were the occupants. ,oday Butyens4
@overnment House is called 3resident4s House% #ut the real #usiness of &overnment ta1es
place at the #ottom of the hill in the parliament #uildin& desi&ned #y a1er.
44
It is an
Imperial city% #ut the Imperialists are no lon&er there.
44
+idley% The Letter of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife, Lady Emily% 5"
!C