The story of New Delhi is usually traced to a moment in December 1911, at the Coronation Durbar then being held in Delhi. The Durbar, a grand assemblage held to celebrate the coronation of George V as the Emperor of India, was a tradition inspired by Mughal durbars. The British had adapted this tradition with a view to inspiring loyalty and attachment in their Indian subjects, by using a symbolic language that was familiar to them. Similar events had been held at Delhi to commemorate the assumption of the imperial title by the two previous British monarchs— Victoria in 1877 and Edward VII in 1903. The Durbar of 1911 was not only on a larger scale than these previous events, it was also the first occasion that the monarch himself was attending.

The main Durbar event, held on 12 December, was the formal assemblage of a large number of officials and dignitaries, including rulers of semi-independent Indian states who were under the sovereign authority of the British Crown. In his closing speech the Emperor dropped a bombshell: ‘We are pleased to announce to Our People...We have decided upon the transfer of the seat of the Government of India from Calcutta to the ancient Capital of Delhi, and simultaneously, as a consequence of that transfer, the creation at as early a date as possible of a Governorship for the Presidency of Bengal... It is Our earnest desire that these changes may conduce to the better administration of India, and the greater prosperity and happiness of our beloved people.’ As a corollary, three days later two ‘foundation stones’ were laid at the vast Durbar site itself, marking the intention to build a new city to house the imperial capital.

The announcement was initially greeted by astonishment all round, since it was so unexpected for the vast majority who heard it. The surprise was soon followed by both positive and negative responses. The superstitious among the naysayers saw an omen of ‘great danger to the British Raj’ in an accident that occurred the day after the announcement. This was when a ship named Delhi, belonging to the Peninsular & Oriental Line, carrying the King’s sister, Princess Louise, and her husband, the Duke of Fife, was wrecked in the Straits of Gibraltar in heavy seas; though they fortunately escaped unharmed. The foundation stone laying ceremony also became involved in some controversy. A simple set of stones that had been prepared by the Public Works Department were used, and a rumour began to circulate that tombstones had been repurposed due to the need to rush the work.

The laying of the foundation stones marked the beginning of the planning process, which would see the city take shape over the next two decades. It also marked the culmination of a well-thought-out policy decision, though one that had been debated within a very small circle. From the earliest days of the East India Company’s growing control over the subcontinent, even as early as 1782, the idea of a capital other than Calcutta had been discussed. The reasons generally put forward were strategic and operational, as Calcutta was tucked away on the eastern coast, at a great distance from many of the far-flung provinces of the growing empire of the British in India. The idea never went any further, and by the mid-nineteenth century, with the growth of a network of communication and transport—particularly the railways, the relatively remote location of Calcutta was no longer of great relevance.

When the question of an alternative capital was raised again in 1911, it was in the context of a very changed political situation. The national movement was growing, and Indians were becoming vocal in their criticism of British rule. The government, under the viceroyalty of Lord Curzon (1899- 1905), initially sought to weaken the movement through the divisive measure of partitioning Bengal. Though purportedly an administrative measure required for better governance of the large and unwieldy province, the motive behind it was to divide the large Bengali-speaking population along communal lines. The move resulted in an upsurge of popular protest, and the rise of episodes of revolutionary violence, both of which soon spread far beyond the borders of Bengal.

The failure of the partition to curb the national movement led Curzon’s successors, Lord Minto (1895-1910) and Lord Hardinge (1910-16), to embark on a different course—that of political reform. The Indian Councils Act of 1909, popularly known as the Morley-Minto reforms (after the Viceroy and the Secretary of State responsible for them) for the first time introduced a limited elected membership in the legislative councils in the centre and the provinces. There was also a strong feeling, growing among officials, that the partition of Bengal along communal lines had been a mistake, and ought to be revoked. It was these political imperatives which lead in a logical progression to the decision not only to transfer the capital, but to transfer it to Delhi.

(Excerpted from Connaught Place and the Making of New Delhi by Swapna Liddle with permission from Speaking Tiger Books)