(First published on NewsYaps)
King George V’s Coronation Memorial |
In 1832, after a decade of fighting, Greece managed to gain independence
from the Ottoman Empire. Greece had been under Ottoman rule for almost four
centuries now, a period that had seen numerous revolts. Naturally, when
independence was finally achieved, passions ran high. The new Greek state, therefore,
embarked on a campaign to destroy as many Ottoman buildings as it could. Of
this destruction spree, the most famous is the demolition drive at the Acropolis
including that of a small mosque inside the Parthenon. Independence wasn’t
enough. Greece wanted to erase all vestiges of its past as a
part of the Ottoman Empire.
Like Greece, India has also had to grapple with the thorny
issue of how to deal with an unpleasant period of colonialism. India’s reaction
to British rule, though, was and is complex. To understand just how complex,
though, you'll need to take a trip to North Delhi’s Coronation Park.
The Coronation Park, as the name suggests, was a site used
to celebrate the British Monarchy at a time when they ruled over India. In
1877, Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India at this site. In 1903, her
son’s coronation was commemorated here. And finally in 1911, the park saw its
final and grandest ceremony which celebrated the coronation of King George V. The final ceremony is marked by a bare sandstone
obelisk at the centre of the park. Built on a square plinth, which is reached
from all four sides by flights of stairs, the obelisk carries plaques in
English and Urdu noting that the new emperor had received “homage and
allegiance” from India’s people and princes. Indeed, Ahmed Ali’s classic Old Delhi
novel, Twilight in Delhi bitterly recounts how some of the
city’s residents had bowed and scrapped to the Emperor on that day—apparently
even the walls of the Jama Masjid were emblazoned with gold letters to mark the
occasion.
What’s most interesting though are the 5 marble statues
which surround the obelisk. You’ll immediately recognise them as British and
that’s exactly what they are. The largest is a 50-foot tall statue of King
George V which sits there triumphantly facing its own coronation memorial. The other statues are of various viceroys and architects.
These statues once adorned intersections all over Delhi and
were transported here sometime after independence. Greece might have decided to
run away from its history by obliterating it but our approach was a bit more
nuanced. We hid the most obvious markers of our colonial past, the statues of
our rulers, in an obscure park no one would even think of going to. Clever, eh.
Yet
, our new rulers kept on residing in the very buildings that were also built
by the British. Ironically, the statue of King George V was designed by architect
Edward Lutyens, the same man who built Rashtrapati Bhavan and indeed the entire
zone called Lutyens’ Delhi in which the crème de la crème of our political class
now have their bungalows in.
R.K. Narayan had once noted this irony in a lovely short story
called Lawely Road. At independence, the town of Malgudi, at
great cost and pain, manages to remove a statue of one Sir Frederick Lawley,
whom they believe had been “a combination of Attila, the Scourge of Europe, and
Nadir Shah, with the craftiness of a Machiavelli.” In a typically humorous
Narayan twist though, it’s only after the statue has been
removed (the recalcitrant statue had to be blown up using dynamite) that the
town municipality learns that Lawley had, in fact, been a virtuous governor who
had advocated for India’s independence and died in the attempt to save
villagers from drowning in a flood.
India has had a complex relationship with its colonial past.
On the one hand there is revulsion, even hate, not surprising given the hugely
destructive consequences of British rule. This statue uprooting is not confined
to Delhi. Bombay’s best kept secret is a small, ramshackle 6X5 feet corrugated tin
shed besides Elphinstone College. If you peek through a hole in the shed’s wall
you’ll see the ghostly silhouettes of the statues of King George V and King
Edward VIII in full military splendour. As in Delhi, these statues once dotted
the city. Bombay, though, was so ashamed of these relics of its past that it
actually locked them away, lest their presence corrupt the nation. It’s no
wonder that a few decades later, the city changed its very name.
Our revulsion, though, is tempered by the fact that we are
also products of colonialism. Our government takes large chunks of its
functioning from the colonial state which it succeeded. Our police and the IAS,
the two pillars of our administration, still function exactly as our colonial
masters meant them to. Our elites (and
that means you, dear reader) read, write and, increasingly,
speak in English. And, in what is almost poetic in its symbolism, our
Parliament functions out of a structure built by the Raj. The complexity of our
relationship with our colonial past is bought out by the fact that Calcutta’s
most famous public space, the Victoria Memorial still carries the actual statue
of its plump namesake, sitting pretty on a throne, patiently accepting pigeon
droppings as morning walkers pace frantically around her. Unlike Delhi and
Bombay, Calcutta, it seems, is not scared by dead monarchs. And while Bombay
hides away its King George V statue, the Gateway of India—built to commemorate
the same monarch’s 1911 visit to India—still functions as an
emblem of Bombay...sorry, Mumbai. Talk about confused
notions of shame and pride.
The fact is, whether we like it or not, we are products of
our past. We might not like the past but that does not change the fact that we
exist because if it. Attempts to deny history are fraught with danger and are,
ultimately, useless. To deny our past, good or bad, is to deny who we are. And
that can never be a good thing.
2 comments:
I visited the Victoria Memorial in Cal the other day and thought a visit to the Museum, particularly for kids in school, would be a great learning experience. Certainly much better than the Drab versions of the old NCERTs(the new ones are just too colorful and not as informative)
The visit definitely invokes emotions of anger, may not be as blatant as in the case of the Jalianwala Bagh site. It was imposed on India then and the monument feels alien to me even now.
All I would say, is that I cannot embrace it but since it is an integral part of Indian history, I will just let it be.
//All I would say, is that I cannot embrace it but since it is an integral part of Indian history, I will just let it be. //
Exactly.
Post a Comment