Why Delhi was chosen as India’s new capital 114 years ago

From that day, Delhi’s fate changed forever. More than a century later, it is worth examining why Delhi was chosen as the capital.

An alternative capital

The laying of the foundation stones, prepared by the Public Works Department, marked the beginning of the new capital of Delhi. Interestingly, the idea of a capital other than Calcutta had been discussed since the earliest days of the East India Company’s presence on the subcontinent. The reasons cited were both strategic and operational: Calcutta, located on the eastern coast, lay at a great distance from many of the promising provinces of the British Empire.

When the question of an alternative capital was debated again in 1911, it was against the backdrop of an evolving political situation. The national movement was gaining ground, and Indians were aggressively critiquing 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 presented as an administrative measure for better governance, the underlying motive was to divide the large Bengali-speaking population along communal lines.

The partition failed to suppress the national movement, prompting Curzon’s successors—Lord Minto (1895-1910) and Lord Hardinge (1910-16)—to pursue political reform. The Indian Councils Act of 1909, also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, introduced limited elected Indian members to the legislative councils at both the central and provincial levels. Meanwhile, there was a growing need to address Indian demands for a greater role in the governance of the country, as the devolution of power had long been under discussion. At the same time, many officials began to feel that partitioning Bengal along communal lines had been a mistake and considered reversing it.

These political pressures ultimately led to the decision not just to move the capital, but to relocate it to Delhi. Liddle notes, “The transfer of the capital was a crucial part of the reform, because, in order for devolution to be meaningful, it was imperative that the provinces be given breathing room, and the capital not be too closely associated with any one province.”

Delhi’s location was an advantage

There were other practical reasons that made Delhi the right choice for the capital of the British Empire in India. “Its advantages of location included equidistance from the major commercial centres of Calcutta and Bombay, and closer proximity to Simla. The latter was important because the upper echelons of government used to make an annual migration to Simla, where they spent the summer months,” notes Liddle. Delhi was also easily accessible from different parts of the country, located at the junction of six railway lines. “Finally,” writes Liddle, “located in North India, it was closer to the majority of the princely states.”

Beyond pragmatic considerations lay Delhi’s symbolic importance. “If an overarching imperial structure was to be the future of the British Raj, no better capital could be found than Delhi—the seat of the great erstwhile empires of India,” Liddle writes. Since the early thirteenth century, with a few exceptions, Delhi had served as the capital of both the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire.

Opposition to the transfer

Yet the move was not without opposition. “Significant non-official opposition to the transfer of the capital came mainly from Calcutta, and, in particular, from the commercial interests that were concentrated in the city that had been the centre of British India for over a century,” writes Liddle.

The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and other organisations led by Europeans expressed their disapproval. Newspapers such as The Statesman and the Amrita Bazar Patrika condemned the move. “Heated debates on the subject also took place in the British Houses of Parliament, where the Liberal government was subjected to sharp criticism from the Conservative opposition,” notes Liddle. These debates continued throughout 1912.

Some critics were agitated because the decision had been taken without consulting the Legislative Council or even the governors of the provinces. Liddle notes, “The suitability of Delhi as a site for the capital was questioned. It was said that the climate was not healthy, it caused fevers and boils. It was a lifeless backwater of the Punjab province, remote from the major centres of commerce—Calcutta, Bombay, Karachi, and therefore the capital and the officials would end up in a[…]”

Controversy thus surrounded the inception of the new capital. “In retrospect,” Liddle writes, “one could probably say that the path to New Delhi as the capital of independent India, finally achieved in 1947, was being laid, though the protagonists at the time could not grasp its significance.”