Designs For Conquest - Anglo-Indian Architecture at Viceroy's House, New Delhi by Dylan Fromm

DesignsforConquest: Anglo-IndianArchitecture atViceroy’sHouse,NewDelhi

AThesisSubmittedinPartialFulllmentofthe RequirementsoftheRenéeCrownUniversityHonorsProgramat SyracuseUniversity

DylanFromm

CandidateforBachelorofArchitecture andRenéeCrownUniversityHonors May2024

Abstract

In1911,theBritishgovernmentmoveditscolonialcapitalin IndiafromtheeasterncityofCalcuttatoDelhi,inthenorth-central regionofthecountry.DelhihadbeencapitaloftheMughalEmpire, whichhadruledovermuchofIndiauntil1857,andwasasymbolic cityformanyIndians Inordertopresentthemselvesaslegitimate successorstotheMughals,theBritishdesignedandbuiltanewcapital calledNewDelhiwhichwouldimpressthepeopleofIndiaandcement theirpoweroverthecountry.

NewDelhiwasdominatedbyabuildingcalledViceroy’s House,theresidenceoftherepresentativeoftheBritishKing-Emperor inIndia.ItwasdesignedbySirEdwinLutyens,aprominentEnglish architectknownatthattimeforhisdesignsforcountryhousesandwar memorials.Between1911and1931,Lutyenspresidedoverthedesign andconstructionofapalatialresidencewhichmergedIndianand Britisharchitectureininnovative,butnotalwayssuccessful,ways The completedbuildingisnotonlyanarchitecturalmarvel,butalsoa physicalrepresentationofBritain’sideasof,andintentionstowards,its greatestcolony Indiaachieveditsindependencein1947,justsixteen yearsaftertherstViceroymovedin;thebuildingistodaythehometo thePresidentsofIndia.

ExecutiveSummary

Between1877and1947,GreatBritainruledovermuchoftheIndiansubcontinentaspartof itsglobalcolonialempire.Untilthe1930s,thegovernmentofIndiawasexclusivelyEuropean,ledby theBritishKing’srepresentative,theViceroy Fornearlythree-hundredyearsbeforethis,theViceroy’s hadruledfromtheeasterncityofCalcutta(nowKolkata),intheregionofBengal.By1911,thesizeof BengalmadeitimpracticalforCalcuttatoremainthecapitalofboththepresidencyofBengaland Indiaitself.Additionally,CalcuttawasamajorbaseforIndia’sindependencemovements;whenthe GovernmentofIndia,oftenknownastheBritishRaj,partitionedBengalin1905,thesituationbecame evenmorevolatile.

In1911,thesameyearthatthecontroversialpartitionwasrevoked,thegovernmentannounced thatthecapitalwouldbemovedfromCalcuttatoDelhi,innorth-centralIndia.Delhihadbeenthe capitaloftheMughalEmpireandwasassociatedinthemindsofmanyBritishwiththefailedIndian Uprisingof1857,whichhadbeentacitlysupportedbythelastMughalEmperor Inmovingthecapital awayfromCalcutta,thegovernmentdistanceditselffromtheovertlycommercialattitudesofthe CompanyandpositioneditselfasthesuccessortotheMughals TheMughalswereprolicbuilders, andtheirpowerbaseinnorthIndiawasfulloftheirarchitecture,includingtheRedFortsatDelhiand Agra,theTajMahal,Humayun’sTomb,andthecityofFatehpurSikri Inthefaceofthisformidable architecturalheritage,theBritishplannedNewDelhionascaletooutdotheirpredecessors.

TheleadarchitectsoftheNewDelhiproject,whichlasteduntil1931,wereSirEdwinLutyens andSirHerbertBaker.LutyenswasaprominentarchitectintheUnitedKingdom,wherehehad

designedaseriesofaristocraticcountryhomesintraditionalstyles,andWesternEurope,wherehehad participatedintheWarGravesCommissionanddesignednumerousWorldWarImonuments, includingtheCenotaphinLondon.HemadehisrstvisittoIndiaonlyafterreceivingthecommission fromtheBritishgovernment Lutyens’uncompromisingopinionsaboutwhatmade“good”and“bad” architecture,aswellashisstronglynegativeviewstowardsIndia’sarchitectureandpeople,would manifestitselfacrossNewDelhi. Bakerhadmorecolonialexperience;hehaddesignedgovernment buildingsfortheBritishinPretoria,SouthAfrica,onasimilarscaletowhatwasplannedforNew Delhi.Ariftearlyonintheirpartnershiplimitedtheabilityofthetwomentolearnfromeachother, and,ingeneral,theycompletedtheirallottedportionsofthedesignalone

Lutyens’mainpreoccupationinNewDelhiwasthedesignofGovernmentHouse,latercalled Viceroy’sHouse,thewinterresidenceoftheKing-Emperor’srepresentative Theresidencewastobe palatialinscale:thenalsetofdrawingsincludedonecomparingViceroy’sHousetothesizeofthe Palacesof VersaillesandWestminster Althoughhehadintendedthedesigntobebasedalmostentirely onWesternEuropeanarchitecturalprecedents,pressurefromthegovernmentandtheViceroy,Lord Hardinge,forcedLutyenstoincludeSouthAsianmotifsinhiswork–adecisionhegreatlyresented In hisnaldesign,LutyensprimarilydrewfromthearchitectureoftheMughalEmpireandofRajastan,a regioninnorth-westernIndiadominatedbyMaharajas(princelyrulers)whowerealsoprolicfortand palace-builders.Themostprominentaspectofthebuilding,thedome,however,wascopiedfromone ofthemostfamousworksofSouthAsianBuddhistarchitecture.ThroughoutViceroy’sHouse, LutyenscuratedandredesignedsuchSouthAsianprecedents,mergingthemwithhispreferredstyles, Palladianandneoclassical,bothbasedonthearchitectureofancientGreeceandRome.

TheAnglo-IndianarchitectureLutyensproducedatViceroy’sHousewasdenedexclusively byBritishinterests,needs,andplansforIndia Itisthereforerootedinorientalism,apseudo-science throughwhichEuropeansevaluated,classied,andromanticizedtheculturesoftheircolonial possessionsinAsiaaccordingtotheirownpreconceptions ThetimingoftheconstructionofViceroy’s Houseisalsoimportant;betweentheestablishmentoftheBritishRajin1877andthecommissioning ofNewDelhiin1911,Britain’sfutureinIndiahadbecomelesssecure.Viceroy’sHouseisthereforea representationoftheaspirationsofadecliningempire,increasinglyatriskfromanti-colonial movements,ratherthanasymbolofBritain’sabsolutepower.Lastly,Lutyens’ownpersonalityis crucial;havingdominatedthedesign,heembeddedbothhispersonalgeniusandprivateopinionsinto everybrickofViceroy’sHouse.Often,thisresultedinarchitecturewhichfailedtomeettheneedsofits usersorwhichbastardizedthebuiltheritageitwassupposedtorepresent

Viceroy’sHousetodayisacherishedpartofIndia’spastandpresent;ithasbeen,afterall, occupiedforfarlongerbythePresidentsofIndiathanitwasbytheBritishViceroys Italsoisaliving memorialtoadeadage:afterthe1940s,noothercommissionofthissize,scale,andluxurywouldbe undertakenbyacolonialempire Viceroy’sHouserepresentstheendofeveryerathatshapedit:theage ofpalaces,theageofempire,andtheageofclassicalarchitecture.

I.Introduction………………………………………///////…………….….6

II.TheTransfer……………………………………………….…………………8

III.TheArchitect…………………………………………………………….11

I.Introduction

From1931tothepresentday,India’sheadsofstatehavebeensynonymouswiththeirhomein NewDelhi[Figure1].ThepalatialresidencewasbuiltforthecolonialViceroysofIndiaonascale bettingtheirroleasrepresentativesoftheBritishKing-Emperor ThehistoryofRashtrapatiBhavan, formerlyViceroy’sHouse,maybroadlybedividedintothreesections:rstly,1911-1931, theperiod ofconstruction;secondly,from1929-1948,whenitwastherstbuildingoftheBritishRajand, (briey)theDominionofIndia;thirdly,theperiodfrom1948tothepresentday,itsserviceasthe homeoftheIndianHeadofState Asthisworkconcernsitselfmostlywiththersttwoperiods,aswell astherelationshipofthebuildingandthegureswhoshapedittoIndia’scolonialandpre-colonial history,itwilllargelyusetheformername,“Viceroy’sHouse.”Referencestothebuildingandits historyafter1948willusethecurrent,correct,name.

Viceroy’sHousewasbuiltasaphysicalrepresentationofBritain’sdominanceoverIndia.Given thebrevityoftheperiodduringwhichViceroy’sHousefullleditsoriginalpurpose(lessthantwo decades),itisdiculttolookatthebuildingtodaywithoutalsoconsideringthehubriswhichdened itsconception Viceroy’sHouseisalsoasymbolforearly-twentieth-centuryBritain’sperspectiveonits greatestcolonialpossession:itsdesignistheculminationofcenturiesoforientalistthought.Itlooksas muchtotheromanticviewsofIndianmonuments,popularizedattheturnofthenineteenthcentury byThomasandWilliamDaniellintheirseriesofpicturesqueprints,OrientalScenery,asitdoestothe increasinglyuncertainfutureoftheRajinthemid-twentieth-century1Inromanticizingandfetishizing

1ThomasR Metcalf,AnImperialVision:IndianArchitectureandBritain’sRaj(London:FaberandFaber,1989),17

selectelementsofIndianhistoricalarchitecture,thecreatorsofViceroy’sHousecontinuedBritain’s attemptstoredeneanddominateaforeignhistory

AlthoughmanymoreconcessionstoIndia’sarchitecturalheritagemaybefoundinthe residenceatNewDelhithanatitspredecessorinCalcutta,Viceroy’sHouseisstillagreatdeparture fromtheostentatiouslyorientalistIndo-Saracenicarchitecturewhichdominatedpreviousdecades [Figure2].ThoughtheIndo-SaracenicostensiblyvaluedhistoricalIndianprecedents,itsawthisvalue inconnectionsbetweenthatarchitectureandtheromanticizedRomanesqueandGothicstylesof Europe.Inhisbook,AnImperialVision,ThomasMetcalfwritesthat“muchoftheappealofthe ‘Saracenic’ wastobefoundintheassociation[to]thearchanddomeofearlyChristendom the SaracenicwasthestyleassociatedaboveallwiththeMughalEmpire,whosepowerandmajestythe Britishnowwishedtoclaimastheirown”2TheneoclassicalandPalladianformsofViceroy’sHouse displayedanalternativeformofdomination:thedesiretoprovideImperialIndiawithamodern heritagewhichwouldtransformthecolonyintothenearequalofitscolonialruler 3Despiteits connotationsofgrandeurandpower,theclassicalstyleuponwhichthearchitectsofNewDelhifell backthussubtlyacknowledgesthefactthatorientalistthinkinghadfundamentallyfailedtorationalize IndiafortheWest.

2Metcalf,AnImperialVision,58.

3Metcalf,AnImperialVision,249

II.TheTransfer

Formostofthecolonialperiod,CalcuttawastherstcityofBritishIndia Before1911,ithad beentheglitteringcapitalofboththeRajandtheBengalPresidency,itslargestadministrativedivision, withanareaof189,000squaremilesandapopulationofseventy-eightmillion(nearlytwicethatof GreatBritain).4In1905,theadministrativedicultiesofthisdualrolepromptedtheviceroy,Lord Curzon,topartitionBengalalongreligiouslines,thusdecreasingthepopulationoverwhichCalcutta’s governmentwasdirectlyresponsible.Anewprovince,EasternBengalandAssam,wouldbemostly Muslim,whilewhatremainedoftheBengalPresidencywasoverwhelminglyHindu 5Whateverits practicalbenet,thisdivide-and-rulepolicyinfuriatedBengaliswho,inthewordsofonenationalist paper,weredriven“fromthebrightandradiantlandofBengalintothedarkanddirecaveofAssam.”

Italsohamperedthegrowinganti-Britishmovement,whichhaditsculturalandpoliticalbase inBengal.Prominentearlyindependenceleaders,includingW.C.BonnerjeeandSurendranath Bannerjee,forexample,wereCalcuttanatives;thenewboundarytiedtheseurbanliberalstotheless politically-activepopulationsofruralBiharandOrissa.7Asthepro-independencemovementbecame conatedwithreligiousdivisions,aMuslim-dominatedintelligentsiainDacca(thecapitalofEastern Bengal)becamearivaltoCalcutta’straditionalHinduelite.Theconictbetweenthe Hindu-dominatedCongressPartyandtheMuslimLeaguewhicharoseasaresultofCurzon’s

4DavidGimour,Curzon:ImperialStatesman(NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1994),272

5Glimour,Curzon,323.

6Glimour,Curzon,272

7SubhadraSenGupta,DiscoverthemagniﬁcentworldofRashtrapatiBhavan(NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision, GovernmentofIndia,2016),10

partitionplanwouldlaterpromptanotherviolentpartitionofBengalin1947anddidnotreachits bloodyconclusionuntil1971,withtheBangladeshLiberationWar

WhenthePartitionofBengalcameintoeect,though,therewasstillnoquestionof transferringthecapital Conversely,theneedtosimplifyadministrationinCalcuttawasadirectresult ofthecity’sunquestionablepositionasthenationalseatofgovernment.Architecturally,ithadnorival onthesubcontinent;itsdensenetworkofneoclassicalpalacesandadministrativebuildingsearnedit thenicknames“TheCityofPalaces”and“TheSaintPetersburgoftheEast.”8Thecomparison betweenCacluttaandSaintPetersburgisapt:bothcitiesaredominatedbyclassicalarchitecture importedfromWesternEuropeandhadbeenfoundedbydecreeratherthanasaresultofnatural populationmovement.SaintPetersburgandCalcuttagrewintoportcitiesonthefringesof increasingly-fracturedinlandempires;bythetwentiethcentury,bothimperialcapitalshadbecome hotbedsofanti-imperialistagitation.

In1910,thefutureKingGeorgeVwrotetothegovernmentinWhitehallsuggestingthathe andmakeastatevisittothesubcontinentinorderto“toallay[the]unrest…andseditiousspirit,which unfortunatelyexistsinsomepartsofIndia”9ThevisitwouldshowIndiathatold-schoolimperial authorityandmoderndemocraticgovernmentwerenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.Thismeant, morethananythingelse,pacifyingthepopulationofBengal.Atthehighpointofthevisit,the CoronationDurbarceremonyinDelhi,thenewEmperorofIndiapersonallyannouncedtherepealof LordCurzon’spartitionplantotherepresentativesofgovernment,Indianprinces,andthousandsof

8WilliamDalrymple,WhiteMughals:LoveandBetrayalinEighteenth-CenturyIndia(NewYork:PenguinBooks,2002), 407.

9DenisJudd,TheLifeandTimeofGeorgeV(London:Weidenfeld&NicolsonLtd,1993)100-101

spectators.Then,incasethiswasnotenoughtosmooththingsover,theKingannouncedthetransfer ofthecapitalfromCalcuttatoDelhi Itwasdone,hesaid,“inthedesirethatthesechangesmay conducetothebetteradministrationofIndiaandthegreaterprosperityofourbelovedpeople.”10

Thetransferofthecapitalwasaconvenientwayofrelievingpressureonthegovernmentat Calcutta:ifapartitionhadfailed,thenthedemotionofthecityfromanimperialtoaprovincialcapital woulddojustaswell.CalcuttawashistoricallyanEastIndiaCompanycity;locatednearthecoastline, itheldanidealpositionfordominatingtradebutwaslesswell-situatedforgoverningBengal,letalone therestofthecolony.Delhi,ontheotherhand,wasequidistantfromthecommercialcapitalsof BombayandCalcutta,closertothepowerbasesofRajputMaharajasinthenorthwest,andnearhill stationsintheHimalayaslikeSimla.11ThesymbolicimportanceoftheformerMughalcapitalwasalso acrucialfactor;Delhiwas“intimatelyassociatedinthemindsoftheHinduswithsacredlegends to theMohammedansitwouldbeasourceofunboundedgraticationtoseetheancientcapitalofthe Mogulsrestored”12

10AndreasVolwahsen,ImperialDelhi:TheBritishCapitaloftheIndianEmpire(NewYork:Presetel,2004),12

11RobertGrantIrving,IndianSummer:Lutyens,Baker,andImperialDelhi(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1981),27.

12Metcalfe,AnImperialVision,211

III.TheArchitect

Theannouncementoftheconstructionofanewcapitalpromptedextensivelobbyingforthe commissionbyBritain’sbest-knownarchitects.ByJune1912,however,despitestrongcompetition fromHVLanchester,thearchitectEdwinLanseerLutyenshadbecometheprimarycandidateinthe mindsofthegovernment,theViceroy,andtheKing.13Lutyenswasknownprimarilyasadesignerof countryhousesforthelandedgentryandpeerage;hisonlyseriousplanningexperiencehadbeenatthe HampsteadGardenSuburbinLondon.Lutyenswas,however,anexpertatblendingvernacular materialsanddetailsintoinnovativetwentieth-centurydesigns Hewasalsoextremelywell-connected; inadditiontonumerouscontactswithintheBritisharistocracy,hisfatherin-lawwastheEarlof Lytton,who,asViceroy,haddeclaredQueenVictoriaEmpressofIndiain1877.14 Lutyenschosehis friendHerbertBakerashismaincollaborator.Bakerhadmorepracticalexperiencedesigningimperial architecture,havingrecentlycompletedtheUnionBuildingsinPretoria,SouthAfrica.15Aletterfrom BakertoLutyenson21October1909containsasketchofplanned furtherdevelopmentinPretoria, includingabuildinglabeled“futureParliament,”whichbearsaremarkableresemblancetoLutyens’ eventualdesignforViceroy’sHouseinNewDelhi 16

Havingreceivedhisocialcommissionfromthegovernment,LutyenstraveledtoIndiainlate March1912 HisarrivalinBombaywashisrstconfrontationwiththeIndo-Saracenicstyle,inwhich IndianmotifsweremodiedandorganizedtosuitthepurposesofBritisharchitectureinthe

13Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,22.

14Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,21

15AmanNath,DomeoverIndia:RashtrapatiBhavan(NewDelhi:IndiaBookHousePvtLtd,2002),23.

16SirHerbertBakertoSirEdwinLutyens,21October1909

subcontinent.17LutyenstookaparticularlydimviewofbothAnglo-IndianandindigenousIndian architecture,andparticularlythatoftheMughalEmpire;hisletterstohiswife,LadyEmily,areriddled withdrawingscaricaturingIndianarchitectureandpeople.18Inonefamousexchange,hewrote:“They wantmetodoHindu Hindon’t,Isay Itisnotarchitecture”19Lutyenswasnotoriouslystubbornand oftendiculttoworkwith;hisgranddaughterJaneRidleydescribesthearchitect,at44,asan“enfant terrible. ”20Architecturewasclearlywhateverhesaiditwas.Althoughhereservedpraiseforitsdetailed work,LutyensdisparagedtheTajMahal,forexample,inlettershome.21Thesecontroversialviewswere notlimitedtoIndia:hisdisappointmentonseeingthefamousAshokapillaratSarnathin1912was equalled,despitehisvenerationofPalladioandPiranesi,byhisrstvisittoGreecetwentyyearslater 22 Still,itisimportanttoconnectLutyens’personaldistasteforIndianbuildingwithhislowopinionof Indiansthemselves–inhisview,Indianssimplycouldnotdesignwell WhentoldbyLordHardinge thathisdesignsmustconciliatetheIndianprinces,Lutyensissaidtohavereplied,“Whatonearthcan anIndianRajahknowaboutarchitectureanditsethics?”23

TheearlydesignsforViceroy’sHousereectthisview.Theearliestformalelevation[Figure3] clearlyleansheavilyonItalianprecedents;thepeakedroofiswatercoloredwithbrown,reminiscentof terracottatiles,whiletheentranceporticoandthedomeabovewerecopiedfromthePantheonin Rome.Inasmallconcessiontolocalarchitecture,thefacadegroundoorispaintedwithareddish

17Metcalf,AnImperialVision,58.

18Metcalf,AnImperialVision,230

19ChristopherHussey,TheLifeofSirEdwinLutyens(London:AntiqueCollector’sClub,1989),239.

20JaneRidley,“Lutyens,NewDelhi,andIndianArchitecture”inLutyensAbroad,ed AndrewHopkinsandGavinStamp (London:TheBritishSchoolatRome,2002),181.

21Ridley,“Lutyens,NewDelhi,andIndianArchitecture,”185

22Ridley,“Lutyens,NewDelhi,andIndianArchitecture,”185.

23Ridley,“Lutyens,NewDelhi,andIndianArchitecture,”186

orange,possiblyrepresentingthesandstonewhichfeaturesprominentlyattheTajMahalandother north-centralIndianmonuments,andwhichwouldlaterbecomeamainbuildingmaterialforthenal design.Still,in1913,afterLutyensreturnedtoEnglandafterhisrstvisit,LordHardingereported thathefoundthearchitect“muchmoreadaptable quitereadytoadoptIndianarchitecturalstyles”24

WhetherthischangewasaresultofanincreasedexposuretoIndianarchitecture,increasingpressure fromtheBritishandIndiangovernments,orchastisementfromLadyEmily,whocriticizedher husband’sIndo-phobicviews,25isunclear.Itispossiblethat,giventhepracticalnecessityfor compromiseandtheimportancetoLutyensoftheNewDelhischeme(arguablythegreatestsingle architecturaldesignopportunityinthehistoryoftheBritishEmpire),thearchitectchosetoabandon hisfanaticalpositionratherthanrisklosingthecommissionentirely.

ThenineteenyearsLutyensspentworkingonNewDelhiconvincedhimthat,thoughhe neitherapprovedofnorunderstoodindigenousIndianarchitecture,acertaindegreeoftolerancewas requiredfromEuropeandesignersworkinginthecountry In1932,theyearafterViceroy’sHousewas completed,LutyenssummarizedhisviewsontheNewAnglo-Indianstylehehadhelpedtodevelop:

EastandWestcananddomeet,withmutualrespectandaection,andthere isnoneedtocrossthedistancesthatseparatetheirpoles Therearetwoways ofbuildinginIndia,onetoparadeyourbuildingsinfancydressasataFancy DressBall,mixingdatesandstyles…ortobuildasanEnglishmandressedfor theclimate…TheearlyHinduworkisgreat,butbeyondourcomprehension–workedouttotheirownweirdrhythm Youcannotadopttheirmethod Takeyourownratios,usethemandadoptthemtothenecessityofclimate 26

24NotebyTheLordHardinge,13January1913

25Ridley,“Lutyens,NewDelhi,andIndianArchitecture,”190.

26“SirEdwinLutyensattheAA”TheArchitecturalAssociationJournalxlviii,no546(August1932),66

IV.OrientalismandPrecedent

Thexationoftheimperialgovernment,andinparticularLordHardinge,onmergingIndian andBritisharchitecturalstylesinNewDelhiwasmorethanacrude(andcertainlytoo-late)cultural concession ItsrootslieinthestudyofAsiancreativeworkbyBritishacademics,agroupwhose membersoverlapsignicantlywiththearistocracy,andthereforetherulingclass,oftheempire.

EdwardSaid,whoseeponymous1976book,Orientalism,originatedtheterm,commentedadecade laterthatthesetrendswereadirectresultofthedicultiesoutsidersfaceinunderstandingregions whicharefrequently,orevenpermanently,inastateofpoliticalandculturalux 27Theneedof Europeanstobothrationalizeandpossesstotallyforeignsocio-culturalsystemsmadeorientalisttheory bothanaspectof,andthedirectacademicanalogueto,theviolentacquisitionofcolonialempires.28In theirattemptstounderstandthemyriadculturesofIndia,Britishorientalistsmodied,romanticized, andoversimpliedthousandsofyearsofheritageintostereotypesandgeneralizations.

OneofthesegeneralizationsisofspecialimportancetothedevelopmentofViceroy’sHouseby Lutyens.TheBritishinIndiaassociatedmanynegativestereotypeswithHindupolytheism;in particular,theperceivedcorruptionoftheBrahmincasteledVictorianscholarstodisparageHindu cultureingeneral.29Manyarchitecturalhistorians,judgingHinduarchitecturebywhattheyperceived asuniversal(butreallyexclusivelyEuropean)standards,founditsorelylackingincomparisontoearlier AshokanandGandharanBuddhistwork.30Fromthe1860s,thearchitecturalhistorianJames

27EdwardW.Said,“OrientalismReconsidered,”inCulturalCritique,no.1(1985),92.

28Said,“OrientalismReconsidered,”93

29Metcalf,AnImperialVision,28.

30Metcalf,AnImperialVision,28-29

FergussonattemptedtoexplaintheapparentdeclineinqualityofIndianarchitectureafterthese periodsalongraciallines,arguingthatHindu-Buddhistintermarriagecontributedtothedecreasing standardofBuddhistarchitectureovertime.31Thisprejudiceexplainswhymanyprominentdetails copiedandmodiedbyLutyensatViceroy’sHousecomefromancientBuddhist,ratherthanmore recentHindu,Sikh,orMuslim,precedents.Fergusson’sapprovalofGandharansculpture,withits BactrianGreekinuences,mayalsohavecontributedtoLutyens’preferenceforusingBuddhistmotifs, astheyweremoreeasilyincorporatedintodesignin hispreferredGreco-RomanandPalladianstyles. TherelativeeasewithwhichEuropeanscouldunderstandreligionsbuiltaroundamajorcentralgure, likeBuddhismandIslam,alsocontributedtotheircriticismandneglectoftheartandarchitectureof polytheisticreligionsinSouthAsia.

Oneofthekeynon-BuddhistinuencesonthedesignsforViceroy’sHousewastheMughal cityofFatehpur-Sikri,builtduringthereignofthegreatemperorAkbar.UnlikecommissionsbyShah Jahan,whoseinlayworkandreectivemarblewereconsideredvulgarbyLutyens,theoldercomplexat Fatehpur-Sikriwasbuiltfromintricatelycarvedlocalredsandstone.32Thiscontrastwasreferencedby E.B.Havell,retiredformerprincipaloftheCalcuttaSchoolofArt,inhisargumentsinfavorofthe adoptionofIndicstylesforNewDelhi.Havellwrotethat,unliketheconstructioninShahJahan’s reign,Akbar’spalaceswerenot“‘unreasonablycostly.’Thesebuildingswere,indeed,‘ofaseriousand digniedstylewhichanycompetentEuropeanarchitectinsympathywithIndiancraftsmencould adapttomodernpurposes.’”

31Metcalf,AnImperialVision,30.

33ThispotentialwouldhaveappealedtoLutyens,whopreferredtocarve

32EbbaKoch,“TheArchitecturalForms,”inFatehpur-Sikri,ed MichaelBrandandGlenD Lowry,(Mumbai:MARG Publications,1987),126.

33 Metcalf,AnImperialVision,213

intolocalmaterialsandavoidedtheuseofgildingpopularduringtheEdwardianperiod;hisdesignsfor thesolidbilliardtable,inlocalchalk,atMarshcourtHouse[Figure4]aresimilartotheMughal carvings,inlocalsandstone,atFatehpur-Sikri[Figure5].

ThedesignersofNewDelhideliberatelyavoidedlateMughalarchitecture,withitsunusual(to Westerneyes)materialpaletteandhighcost,andfocusedinsteadonearlyMughalandRajputfort designs.DuringLutyens’rstvisittoIndiain1912,LordHardingeorderedthearchitects’tourgroup tovisitthegreatRajputconstructionsinJaipurandthegreatMughalcityofAgra.34Partoftheappeal ofthesesiteswastherelationshipbetweentheRajputsandtheMughals,bothculturallyandthrough frequentintermarriage ThearchitecturalhistorianGHR Tillotsonwritesthat,while“allMughal buildingsincorporateHinduformstosomedegree…inAkbar’spalacecomplexatFatehpurSikrithey areusedalmostexclusively”35AttheJaipurPalace,theDiwan-i-Ampavilionisequallyawholly MughaldesignwithinacomplexforpowerfulHindurulers.36Tillotsonemphasizes,however,thatthe useofMughalformsbyHindurulers,andviceversa,wasnotacompleteornaturalmergingoftwo architecturalheritagesbutwasaresultofdeliberatestylisticshiftsfrombuildingtobuilding.

ComparingFatehpurSikriandtheJaipurpalace,heconcludessimply:“AMughalEmperorhas commissionedapalaceintheHindustylewhileaRajputrajahascommissionedpartofapalaceinthe Mughalstyle.”

WhetherthisnuancewasknowntoLutyensisuncertain.Heclearlyrecognized,however,the frequencywithwhichIndo-PersianandHinduarchitectsborrowedfrom,andinnovatedon,the

34Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,179.

35GHT Tillotson,TheRajputPalaces:DevelopmentofanArchitecturalStyle,1450-1750,(NewHaven:YaleUniversity Press,1987),29.

36Tillotson,TheRajputPalaces,31

architecturalheritageofdierentcultures.InViceroy’sHouse,themajorityoftheelementswhicha visitormightassociatewithMughal,Buddhist,andHinduarchitecturehavebeensimplied, re-proportioned,orevenredesignedbyLutyensaccordingtoBritishstandards.Themostprominent aspectofthebuilding,itsfamousdome,wasderivednotfromHinduorMuslimarchitecturebutfrom theBuddhiststupasatSanchi.37Somehistoriansarguethat“Lutyens’useofBuddhistforms acknowledgedthatBritain,ifnotyetreadytoabandonaltogetheritsauthorityoverthesubcontinent, hadneverthelessabdicateditsclaimtoasuperiorknowledgeofIndia’speoplesanditspast.”38Itis unlikelythat,givenLutyens’condescending(atbest)andracist(atworst)viewsofIndianarchitecture, heeverintendedtomakethissortofpoliticalstatement ThesuccessfulelementsofViceroy’sHouse owemoretoLutyens’geniusinadaptinghisdesigntovariouspressuresfromcompetingintereststhan itdoestograndarchitecturalorpoliticalgestures,whichintheRajwereinevitablyrootedinthe orientalist’sdeliberatemisunderstandingoftheOrient.

37Metcalf,AnImperialVision,238.

38Metcalf,AnImperialVision,238

V.TheDesign

Althoughthenineteen-year-longconstructionperiodofViceroy’sHouseisworthyof prolongeddiscussion(asevidencedbythemanybooksdedicatedtothesubject),themotivesand inuenceswhichdeneditaremuchmoreevidentinthedetailsofthenishedbuilding Therst impressionsofViceroy’sHousetoanyvisitorduringtheRaj(andstilltodayforthevisitorto RashtrapatiBhavan)wasthegreatdomewhichtowersabovetherestofNewDelhi LutyensandBaker engagedinaprotracted,nowfamous,debateabouttheviewofViceroy’sHousefromtheeastern approachroad,King’sWay(today’sRajpath) Lutyensfavoredashallowapproachwhichrevealedthe entirebuilding(fromtheplinthsofthecolumnswhichlinethepianonobile)fromthebottomof King’sWay.TheschemesupportedbyBaker,andwhichwasconstructed,resultedinasteeperascent upKing’sWay,fromthebottomofwhichonlythedomeisvisible[Figure 6].39Regardlessofthe architecturalmeritsofeitherscheme,theimplementationofthelatterhasensuredthatthedome dominatesthephysicalandpsychologicalperceptionofViceroy’sHouse Thisisevidencedinthetitle ofAmanNath’socialhistory(oneofseveral)oftheRashtrapatiBhavan:DomeOverIndia.

Thecompleteddesignofthedome[Figure7]didnotentirelypleaseitsarchitect The inclusionofthethickrailing,copiedfromtheSanchistupas[Figure8],createdapronouncedstep whichLutyensconsideredinelegant 40Althoughtheroofispositionedatthecenterofthesquare boundarylineofViceroy’sHouse,theshapeoftheH-shapedplan,withitsvastforecourt,causedthe

39Nath,DomeOverIndia,41.

40Irving,IndianSummer,186

dome’sedgetositmuchclosertotheStateEntrance(East)frontthantoanyoftheothers.41Asaresult, the“forceofthepowerfullinesofthecupola,drumandsquarebaseisfeltmostfullyfromthepoint wheretheirsignicanceshouldbemostclearlyandrightlyapprehended[theStateEntrance].”42The twelvecolumnsofthiscolonnadesontheStateEntranceFront,aremodicationsbyLutyensofthe Tuscanorder,whichhecalledtheDelhiOrder[Figure9].Thecapitalsofthesecolumns,decoratedat eachcornerwithabellinspiredbythecolumnofthefteenth-centuryJaintempleatMoodbidri,43is alsoconnectedbothwiththebellsofBuddhistworshipandthebell-shapedlotussacredtoHindus.

44 Theseuniquecapitals, designedbyLutyensasasuccessortothegreatclassicalorders,wereneverused anywhereoutsideofNewDelhi,anddonotappearintheothervastcomplexesofthenewcity Even BakerretainedmodiedCorinthiancapitalsforhisnewtwinSecretariatbuildings,justdownthe road

TheinterioroftheDurbarHall,directlyunderthedome,concedesevenlesstoIndian precedents LordHardingehavingrejectedhisoriginaldesignsforthehall,Lutyenssimplyconcealed themunderthehugeneo-Ashokandome.Thedesignofthehall,withitscolumnedrecessesand coeredarches,oweseverythingtoclassicalprecedents,fromthePantheontotheVillaRotundaand theAltesMuseum.46Thisconcealmentisvisiblemoreclearlyinsectionswhichrevealtheunique three-layereddomesystemitrequired;inthesedrawings,theperfectsphereoftheactualdomeofthe

41ASG Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,Volume2:Gardens,Delhi,Washington(London:CountryLife, 1950),31.

42Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,34

43Nath,DomeAboveIndia,62.

44Irving,IndianSummer,183

45Irving,IndianSummer,301.

46Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,117-119

DurbarHallisdwarfedbythevastbell-shapedemptyspaceundertheAshokandomeabove.47Thatthe nalplansforthedomewereonlycompletedin1926indicatesthetimeeortrequiredtocombinean exteriorformredolentofmultipleSouthAsiancultureswithaninteriorrootedentirelyinItalian precedent AswiththeDelhiOrdercolonnades,concessionstoIndianarchitectureinthedetailsofthe DurbarHall,likethelotusmotifsofthegrillesandoors,dolittletosoftentheoverallimpressionof monumentalwesternarchitecture.RobertIrvingwritesthat“visitorsoftheDurbarHallndtheir delightinnon-pictorialfeatures.Thechiefornamentoftheroomconsistsinitsproportions…The perfectgeometryofcirclesandsquares…impliesanempireoforderedunityandpermanence.”48That thisperfectgeometryiswhollywesternandconcealedontheinteriorofadomewhichpaysprominent tributetotheBuddhistarchitectureidolizedbyBritishorientalistsperhapsindicatesthesuperciality ofsuchconcessionsatatimewhentheendofempirewasslowlyapproaching

A.S.G.ButlerwrotethattheplansforViceroy’sHousegenerallyavoids“SirEdwin’stendency tooverstresshiscorridorsandwhatwecalledtheaccess-areainrelationtotherooms”49Despitethis, theprincipaloorsremaindominatedbyvastloggiasandcolonnades,andthetwobasementoorsare anetworkoflongcorridorsconnectingthesmallerspacespopulatedbythemassivestaofthe building.IncontrasttothemonumentalWestern-styleentrancesontheStateEntranceFront,the stumpypiersofthekitchenentranceontheSouthFront[Figure10]areinspiredbytheformsofcave templesatAjunta.50Nathdescribestheseformsasa“‘Native’note…introducedforthe‘native’

47Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,123.

48Irving,IndianSummer,195

49Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,33.

50Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,36

workers’entrance.”51TheAjuntacaveprecedentsalsocontributetothedarkandcavernousappearance ofthestaareas,afulltwooorsbelowthevastspacesoftheStateRooms Thethickfoundationwalls andlonghorizontalspacesarepracticalconsiderationswhichcontributetobothhumanandair circulationontheloweroors,evenif,asButlerimplies,Lutyenswasnotfullyabletodistancethem fromthemonumentalarchitecturehesoenjoyedcreating.

Manyotherpracticaldecisions,mostlyrelatedtoclimatecontrol,ndtheirprecedentsin Indianarchitecture.ThelongsandstoneloggiasareLutyens’versionsofMughalcolumnedfacades throughoutnorth-centralIndia.AttheRedFortinAgra,therelativelyausterered-sandstoneAkbari Mahal,roughlycontemporarywiththeotherMughalprecedentatFatehpurSikri,consistsof high-ceilinged,well-ventilatedapartmentsorganizedaroundasquarecourtyard.52Itbearsboth organizational,aesthetic,andmaterialconnectionstoLutyens’apartmentsinViceroy’sHouse, plannedaroundprivatecourtyardsandloggiasinthesamematerial.Thefacadehierarchiesofthe Diwan-IKhassattheRedFort,withitsmarbleprimarypavilionabovesandstone-collonaded courtyards[Figure11],arereminiscentofthecream-coloredpianonobileabovethesandstone basemententrancesoftheSouthFrontofViceroy’sHouse.53Thecombinationofgrillesandarcheson theinsideoftheDiwan-IKhassispatentlythepredecessorofLutyens’ownsandstonejaligrilles.Their graftingonofthesegrilles forpracticalreasons,however,resultsinaninharmoniouscompositionof MughalmotifswithinclassicalWesternarchesandwindows;NathwritesLutyens’stonejalis,hanging inthethesearches,lookmorelikescallopedVictoriancurtainsthanneo-Mughaldesign[Figure12].54

51Nath,DomeOverIndia,68.

52GeorgeMichell,MughalArchitecture&Gardens(Mumai:TheShoestringPublisher,2011),131

53Mitchell,MughalArchitecture&Gardens,147.

54Nath,DomeOverIndia,64-65

TherearecountlessexamplesofthiskindtobefoundinViceroy’sHouse.Lutyens’useof Indianprecedents,thoughtreatedwiththesamedelicacythatcharacterizesallthearchitects’work,is notalwayssuccessful.Thesuccessorfailureofhisattemptsisdeterminedprimarilybytheabilityof chosenIndianprecedentstotintothecontextofLutyens’Italianateclassicalforms Notwithstanding theunusualDelhiOrder,thecolumnedcirculationspaces,forexample,arehighlysuccessfulbecause theyfeatureasmuchinMughalpalacesastheydoinGreektemples.Thechattripavilionsaredeftly wovenintothehightambourofthedome,whoseproportionsweretakenfromwesternprecedentslike St.Paul’sCathedralinLondonandtheCapitolBuildinginWashington,D.C.55

Otherdecorativeelements,likethejalismentionedabove,thevastpineconeswhichfeaturein theAllIndiaWarMemorial,56thesnakefountainsoftheSouthCourt,57theRajputcrenellations invertedontheundersideoftheoverhangingroofs[Figure9],58andtheover-emphasisonperfect geometricforms(suchastheperfectly-circularformsfoundinthegardenwallsandventilation channels[Figure13]popularlysupposedtocomefromtheshapeofLutyens’trademarkglasses)59 are clearlyhumorousadd-onspromptedbyLutyens’personalinterestsratherthanmotifsresultingfrom seriousstudyofindigenousarchitecture.ThebestworkatViceroy’sHouseisfoundinplaceswhere Lutyens’useshisnaturalinventivenesstoaddresspracticalissueswithnew,blended,Anglo-Indian forms.Pointsofaesthetic,constructive,andeconomicfailureappearwhenLutyensattemptseitherto

55Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,78-79

56Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,165-166.

57Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,185

58Nath,DomeoverIndia,63.

59Irving,ImperialSummer,220

copy-pastehalf-bakedIndianmotifsontohisrigorousclassicaldesignordisguisewhollywesternspaces

withinshellscalculatedtoevokehistoricIndianprecedents

VI.TheFirstGardenofIndia

Unlikethemainresidence,thegardensofViceroy’sHousearemostlyrootedintheheritageofMughal design.TheMughals,whohadcometoIndiafromCentralAsia,wereobsessivegardenbuilders;manyof India’sgreatestsurvivinggardenswerebuiltduringtheMughalEmpire,whilemanyofthetheparadisiacal BuddhistandHindugardensnowexistonlyinwrittendescription.60TherelativelyruggedterrainofKabul necessitatedtheorganizationofpre-conquestMughalgardensacrossterracesofvaryinglevels,andtheatter conditionsofCentralIndiamadethisstyleofbuildingmoredicult(hencetheproliferationofMughal gardensinmountainousKashmir) 61Landscapedesignersmadeupforthelackofvariationintheseatter IndianMughalgardensthroughinnovativeorganizationsofplantingsandarchitecturalelements.Most Indo-Persiangardensarecharacterizedbyachar-baghorganization,inwhichthegardenisdividedintofour sectionsdividedbywaterchannels,inaversionoftheIslamiccelestialgarden.62

Lutyens’squaregardenisorganizedinasimilarway,althoughthisismoreevidentindrawnplansthan itisinthegardenitself Lutyens’chiefcollaboratorforhisBritishcountryhousegardenshadbeenGertrude Jekyll,thegreatestlandscapedesignerofthetime.Jekyll’slooseplantingborders,aswellastheintensethought whichshedevotedtoproducing“carelessly”arrangedpaths,hadlittletodowiththetypicalrigidgeometriesof Mughalgardens,althoughhertrademarkcolorfulandvariedplantingsarestillevidentonthePresidential Estatetoday63Instead,LordandLadyHardingeaskedLutyenstocollaboratewiththegardenresearcher

ConstanceVilliers-Stuart,whose1913book,TheGardensofMogulIndia,hadbeenhighlyinuentialand

60Nath,DomeOverIndia,112.

61Mitchell,MughalArchitecture&Gardens,28

62Mitchell,MughalArchitecture&Gardens,30.

63Nath,DomeOverIndia,113

whichtheHardingeshadbothread.OnhisvisitstotheMughalgardensattheTajMahal,theRedFortin Delhi,andthroughoutKashmir[Figure14],LutyenshadformedahighviewofIndo-Persiangardendesign whichwasincontrasttohisaforementioneddistasteforalmostallIndianarchitecture.64Anotherinspiration, fromcloserbyinDelhiitself,wasHumayun’sTomb,therstgreatchar-baghgardeninnorthIndia;itsunique sixbysixgridorganization,uniqueinMughalgardenbuilding,mayhavegivenLutyensthecondenceto experimentsomewhatwiththerigidsubdividedformshefoundelsewhere.65

WithVillers-StuartandJekyll,LutyenscombinedthepicturesquesystemofEnglishgardenplanting withthecarpet-likeatnessofMughalgardens;thelongsurfaceconditionsoftheresultingMughalgarden meshwellwiththehorizontalsprawlofthehouseitself However,thegarden’slackofterraceslimitedthe eectivenessofitsorganizationwhenseenfromthehouse.UnlikeatVersailles,whoserigidparterresarethe westernrelativeofcomplexMughalplantingsystems,therearenomonumentalstaircasesorslopingalléesin thegardenatViceroy’sHouse;theMughalgardenisbestviewedonlyfromthepianonobile[Figure15].

66The gardenspacesaredenedbysmallerchangesinheight;atwofootdierencebetweentheheightofafountain basinandthesecondarycanalswhichsubdividethegarden,forexample,causeswatertorundownaseriesof stepscarvedintheshapeofsh.67Themostfamouspartofthegarden,Lutyens’giantsixteen-pooled fountains,contributegreatlytothepoetryofdrippingwatercommontoMughalgardens.Theformofthese poolsisalternatelydescribedasalotusleaf(inhomagetoitssymbolicimportancetoIndia)orasVictoriaRegia lilies(inhomagetotheQueen-Empress).68

64AnitaBaviskar,“TheFormalGardens:EnglishFlowersinanIslamicCharbagh,”inTheFirstGardenoftheRepublic,ed. AnitaBaviskar(NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision,GovernmentofIndia,2016),38

65Mitchell,MughalArchitecture&Gardens,30.

66Baviskar,“TheFormalGardens,”41

67Baviskar,“TheFormalGardens,”45.

68Irving,IndianSummer,218

ThereareconcessionstotheBritishgardens,too:thelongpergolawhichconnectsthesquareMughal gardenandthecirculargarden(knownasthePurdahGarden,duetoitsseclusionintheestate)isbasedonthe similarpergoladesignedbyLutyensandJekyllforthegardensatHestercombeHouse,inSomerset.69The sixteenbedsalongsidethepergolahavebeen,since1931,continuouslyplantedwithroses;accordingtoLady BeatrixStanley,wifeoftheGovernorofMadrasandherselfagreathorticulturist,theyfarsurpassedanytobe hadintheBritishIsles.70ThepastelpalettethatJekyllplannedfortheowerbedsremainstodayinspirit,even ifreplantingsbysuccessivepresidentshaveledtochangesinthespeciesofcolorfulowersondisplay.The originalplantingsincludedamixofwesternimports,includingtulips,chrysanthemums,periwinkles,and easternindigenousandnaturalizedowers,likerajnigandha(tuberose)andcanna 71

Fromtheexterior,theheavyformofViceroy’sHouseissomewhatmismatchedwiththecolorfuland intricategardens;theplandrawings[Figure16],however,revealthatthetwospacesaredeeplyconnected The mazeofsymmetricalroomsintheresidentialwingsisdirectlymirroredinthesubdivisionscausedbychanging levelsandawebofcanalsinthegardenitself Itisashamethat,althoughitsees400,000visitorsannually,the gardens–themostsuccessfulblendingofEastandWestontheViceregalEstate–arenecessarilylessfamous andsymbolicthantheco-optedformsofthebuildingitself.Thatthemost“Indian”spacesontheEstateare alsotheleastpublicwasnotaresultofsomedeliberatemove.ThisorganizationismoretheresultofLutyens’ unequivocalPalladianfanaticism,whichlimitedtheeectivenessoftheIndianelementsinViceroy’sHouse,as wellashispersonalreluctancetoincorporateMughalformsintohisworkanddiscomfortdesigninggarden spacesingeneral.Whileallthegardens’architecturaldetailsbearLutyens’trademarkcreativity,establishment

69Nath,DomeOverIndia,115

70Baviskar,“TheFormalGardens,”49.

71Baviskar,“TheFormalGardens,”44

ofthehorticulturalinnovationwhichcontinuestodayisthankstohisthreecollaborators,LadyHardinge,

Jekyll,andVilliersStuart

VII.IndianCountryHouseStyle

Therstviceregalcoupletospendtheirentireterm(1931-1936)atViceroy’sHousewerethe MarquessandMarchionessofWillingdon.LadyWillingdon,whohad“honedherskillsasahigh memsahibwhen [herhusband]servedasthegovernorofthepresidenciesofBombayandMadrasand thenasGovernor-GeneralofCanada,”wastobecomeLutyens’nemesis,systematicallyundoingmany ofhisplansandaddingcrudedecorativeelementsthroughoutViceroy’sHouseandtheViceregal Estate.

72OneofLordWillingdon’sAides-de-Campeven“compiledalistof23itemsrelatingtothe ‘damagedonetothefabric,furnitureandgardensoftheViceroy’sHouse [suchas]redlightsplaced atthefourcornersofthedometosignifythatTheirExcellenciesareinresidence…[and]the introductionofcertainvulgaritiessuchasoodlightingintheMoghulgarden.’”

ThegreateststagefortheconictwasintheStateBallroom,avastspacealongthewestfrontof Viceroy’sHouse,overlookingtheMughalgarden.InimagesoftheStateBallroompublishedby CountryLifein1931[Figure17],theprofusionofwindows,arches,andmirrorslightenthespaceand createavisualeectsimilartothatoftheopen-airloggiaselsewhereinthebuilding.Thiseectis ampliedbythelimitingofstonecarvingstothelowerportionoftheroom(asisdoneinmanyofthe loggias)withthevastsparsely-decoratedwhiteceilingactingasasortofindoorsky.74Butlerwritesthat Lutyens“understoodthatthemovingmassofdancersprovidedthecolorandexcitement–especially inImperialDelhi,withitsuniforms,thegorgeousdressesandtremendousjewels.”75Awatercolorby

72YashaswiniChandra,“AHomefortheRaj,”inLifeatRashtrapatiBhavan,ed SudahGopalakrishnanandYashaswini Chandra(NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision,GovernmentofIndia,2016),37.

73Chandra,“AHomefortheRaj,”37

74Plate180,“180.StateBall-room,”inTheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens.

75Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,38

WilliamWalcot,completedinLutyens’Londonocein1913, indicatesthearchitect’soriginal decorativeschemefortheceiling:inthecenter,aroundmedallionwastohavehousedapaintinggiven toKingGeorgeIVbytheShahofIran,FathAliShah.Aroundit,andonthewallsabovethecarved stone,werepaintedmedallionsandgarlandsreminiscentofRobertAdam’sPompeiianfrescoes

ToLutyens’despair,LadyWillingdoncommissionedtheIndo-ItalianpainterTommaso ColonnellotocovertheentireceilingandupperwallswithPersian-stylepaintingsrepresentingaroyal procession.76ThoughLutyenshatedColonnello’sfrescoes(completedinOctober1933,justtwoyears afterViceroy’sHouseitselfwasnished),LadyWillingdon’ssuccessorasimperialhostess,the MarchionessofLinlithgow,recognizedthepowerfulimpressionmadebytheaddition Thoughshe andherhusband,theViceroy,recalledLutyenstoIndiatooverturnmanyofthechanges,sherefusedto lethimremovetheballroomfrescoes Liketheapproachtothebuilding,whichLutyensalso consideredanaberration,thefrescoeswhichadorntheStateBallroom(todayknownastheAshoka Hall)havebecomecloselyassociatedwiththeimageofRashtrapatiBhavan[Figure18] 77

Asacountryhousearchitect,Lutyenswasboundtoconatethearchitectureofthestatewith theresidentialarchitectureofBritain’supperclasses.Lutyenspreviousworkrenderedhimanexpertin theemergingEnglishCountryHouseStyle;hewaswell-versedbothinconvertinginhospitablehistoric buildings(likeLindisfarneCastle,inNorthumberland,andLambayCastle,outsideDublin)into comfortablehomes,orcreatingthemoutrightfromtraditionalforms(asatCastleDrogo,inDevon). TheorganizationanddetailintheprivateroomsatViceroy’sHouse,mostprominentlyintheimperial

76Nath,DomeOverIndia,86.

77Chandra,“AHomefortheRaj,”37

nurseries,issuperbandinventive.There,Lutyenspersonallydesignedlightxturesintheshapesof prayingangels,shingboys[Figure19],andhens(withthelightbulbsastheyolksof broken-egg-shapedshades);78thenurseryclockintheshapeofabewiggedfootmanisoneofhismost famousdesigns 79Thesedesignsareclearlytheproductofthesameinventivenesswhichprompted Lutyens’similarlyfrivolous,butmoreprominentandthereforelesssuccessful,treatmentsofthepublic facadesandspacesofViceroy’sHouse.Indoors,however,inthecontextofthealmost-completely Englishprivaterooms,theseplayfuldetailsarebothcharminganduseful.

TherigidsocialhierarchiesofBritishIndianarchitecturefacilitatedadeeplyorganizedand segregateddesign Lutyensusedthesemi-stateroomsonthegroundoorasacirculationspace connectingthequartersdesignatedfortheViceroyandimportantguests;theviceroy’sroomscouldbe closedo,becomingaself-containedsuite,orexpandedtoincludetheadjacentstateandsemi-state apartments.

80TheseenladeshavetheirprecedentsinolderEuropeanpalacearchitecture,likewise builtaroundtheantiquatedsocialhierarchieswhich,thoughslowlydyingout,continuedtodene aristocraticBritainandcolonialIndia.Avastamountofspaceisdedicatedtotheviceregalfamilyitself, includingtheentirenorthwestwingandgroundoorofthenorthfront.Guestsfrequentlyrecall gettinglostinthenetworkofcardrooms,sittingrooms,drawingrooms,anterooms,winterand summeroces,dressingrooms,diningrooms,breakfastrooms,billiardroomsandwaitingrooms,not tomentionthesta,guest,andworkingquarters,whichmadeuptheprincipaloors.81Whilethe

78ElizabethWildehide,SirEdwinLutyens:DesigningintheEnglishTradition(NewYork:HarryN Abrams,Inc, Publishers,2000),184-185.

79Wildehide,SirEdwinLutyens,174

80Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,41.

81Chandra,“AHomefortheRaj,”35

personalstaoftheViceroy,aswellastheADCs,werebilletedwithinViceroy’sHouseitselfandoften tookmealswiththefamily,thevastmajorityoftheIndiansta,servants,andbodyguards,livedin poorerquartersaroundtheViceregalEstate.Thisracialandsocialhierarchywasmimickedbyallthe majorgovernmenthouseholdsofNewDelhi.OneADCtotheCommander-in-ChiefLordWavell, laterpenultimateViceroyofIndia,wrotethat

TheCommander-in-Chief’sstaof113mainlylivedinacompoundtoone sideandalittlewayawayfromthemainhouse Eachfamilyhadaroom,in whichtheycookedandateandlived.WhenIvisitedthecompound,which wasn’tveryoften,everyoneseemedhappyandcontent,butthecontrastof theirlivingconditionswithminewasextreme.82

LutyensintendedthematerialsimplicityofViceroy’sHousetoserveascontrasttothecolorandpomp ofImperialIndianlife.Takingtheplaceofpaintingsandgildingwerecolorfulhumandecorations–Indianson thestaoftheArmy,CivilService,ortheViceroyhimself Forallthefantasticbeautyoftheceremonyat Viceroy’sHouse(whichcontinuestodayatRashtrapatiBhavan),itmustberememberedthattheglitterand thegoldwasarrangedbytheBritishrulingclassfortheirownbenet TheBritishadoptedMughaltitles,in Urdu,forthestaofViceroy’shouse;theywererequiredtoperformnotone,buttwo,salaamswhenthey foundthemselvesinthepresenceofTheirExcellencies 83AccountsoflifeatViceroy’shouseoftengeneralize andstereotypetheordinaryIndianguresatstateoccasions:whilethebejeweledMaharajasareeach mentionedbyname,thevastremainder,fromthebarefootedkhidmatgarsbehindeachchairtothearmed bodyguardliningthegreatstaircases,blendintoabackground,asLutyensintended.84

82TomBird,LettersHome(1939-1946),privatelypublished,qtd inChandra,“AHomefortheRaj,”39

83Nath,DomeOverIndia,83.

84Chandra,“AHomefortheRaj,”39

ThegenerousviewermightchalkthesocialrepercussionsofLutyens’architectureuptoitsbeinga reectionofthetimeswhichproducedit Evenwhenconsideredfromtheperspectiveofapre-1947Imperial Briton,however,theStateApartmentsareasmuchafailureastheprivateapartmentsareasuccess.Likethe ruinedorabandonedIndianarchitecturewhichwastheirprecedent,theinteriorofViceroy’sHousein pre-independencephotographsappearsbarrenanduncomfortable–onecanunderstandwhyLady WillingdonandhersuccessorspreferredthecolorofColonnello’sfrescoedBallroomtoLutyens’original designs.ExistingwatercolorsfromLutyens’studiorevealthat,whilemanyofthepublicspaceswereintended tobefrescoed,theprojectswerenevercompletedduringtheRajexceptinLadyWillingdon’sunsatisfactory attempts,rectiedbyLutyensin1938 85Theinteriordecorationareequallyincongruous:Viceroy’sHousewas designedonthescaleofVersaillesbutfurnishedinthestyleofacountryseatintheHomeCounties.Photos showLutyens’ballroomcarpetedandlledwithfurniturearrangedquaintlyingroupsaroundpottedowers (clearlyanattempttofurthersoftenthecavernousspace);86intheCardRoom,chintzcouchesfaceareplace tenfeethigh[Figure20];87inblack-and-whitephotos,thebareceilingsofthestatedrawingdoomsseemto stretchbeyondtheedgeoftheframe,theircurvedformsundenedbyeithersharpangles,frescoesor carvings.88

EvidenceofLutyens’failuresinthedomesticarchitectureofViceroy’sHousecanbefoundinthe prolicwritingsofitsmanyoccupants.LordIrwin,thehouse’srstoccupant,laterbecametheBritish AmbassadortotheUnitedStates;uponrstenteringhisnewhomeinWashington,hetoldhisaides,“This seemsfamiliar.”Afteradeeplyuncomfortablerstnight,headded,“Itisveryfamiliar;”theBritish

85Nath,DomeOverIndia,79.

86Nath,DomeOverIndia,87

87Plate186,“186.DetailoftheCardRoom,”inTheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens.

88Plate182,“182 NorthStateDrawing-Room,”inTheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens

Ambassador’sResidencewasalsodesignedonapalatiallyinconvenientscalebyLutyens.89Nowhere,however, istheunsuitabilityofthesespacesforhumanoccupancymorevisiblethanintheseriesofportraitstakenat Viceroy’sHousebythephotographerCecilBeaton,sentonassignmenttoIndiabytheWarOce.90His photographsoftheviceregalcoupleathome,isolatedawayfromtheirretainersandbodyguards,showLord andLadyWavell[Figure21]dwarfedbytheirsurroundingsandlookingmoreunsureofthemselvesthanthey doinanyotherimages.TheseimagesareunlikethehighlystylizedportraitswithwhichBeatoniscommonly associated;itislikelythat,withhisartist’seyeforcontrastanddrama,hesawLutyens’spacesasenoughofa stage-set.ThesemayevenbeconsideredthearchetypalimagesoftheBritishinlate-imperialIndia,faroutof theirdepthamidstarchitecturalsurroundingsrepresentativeoftheirdelusionsofgrandeur

89Nath,DomeOverIndia,123

90CecilBeaton,Oﬃcialphotograph,1944,photoprint,ImperialWarMuseums,London, https://wwwiwmorguk/collections/item/object/205402872

VIII.Conclusion

Aspurearchitecture,Viceroy’sHousewasamasterwork Itisperhapsthelasttruepalaceon earth;thatitwasdenedbytheworkofasinglearchitectofgenius,whosehandcanbeseenin everythingfromtheplanofNewDelhiitselftothedoorhandlesintheservant’squarters,makesit evenmoreextraordinary.Asahome,andasanimperialsymbol,itwasmostlyafailure.Theprecedents usedbyLutyensatViceroy’sHouse,coveringsomeofIndia’slargestreligionsandthousandsofyearsof herhistory,allrepresentedthebuiltheritageofcultureswhichhadeitherbeenforcefullysubjugatedor fallenawayaltogether ThemostpoignantimagesofViceroy’sHouseandRashtrapatiBhavanare thoseoftheemptyorhalf-furnishedroomspublishedinCountryLifebeforeLordandLadyIrwin movedinin1931:heretherelationshipbetweenLutyens’giantsandstoneloggiasandtheabandoned palacesoftheRedFortsandFatehpurSikriismostobvious.Viceroy’sHousewasalastattemptbythe BritishinIndiatoclingtothatimperialwayoflife,andthus,despiteallthetalkofitsbuildersabout developinganarchitectureforIndia’sfuture,itlooksalmostentirelytothepast Thisismostnatural–alreadyin1931thefutureoftheBritishEmpirewasbecomingincreasinglyuncertain.

CarefulstudyofLutyens’oeuvreoutsideofIndiashouldhaveindicatedtothegovernment thatneitherhispersonalitynorinterestsweresuitedtoforgingacompromisebetweentheIndian formshedisparagedandthePalladianformsheidolized InmostbooksonhisroleatNewDelhi, referenceismadetoaseriesofsketchesproducedbyLutyensbetween1893and1896ofthe hypothetical“Châteaud’Ease,enAir,surFleuvedeRêves,”avastpalacewhoseformsbearastrong

resemblancetoViceroy’sHouse[Figure22].91AsLutyens’othersimilarlyscaledworks,likethe LiverpoolCathedralandthePalaceofElGuadalperal,fortheSpanishDukeofPeñaranda,92 werenever built,Viceroy’sHousebecametherstandonlyplacewhereLutyenswasabletomakethese long-cherisheddreamsareality.ThisexplainstheintenserigorofLutyens’geometries,thesimplicityof hisausterecarvedspaces,hisrejectionandmanipulationof“native”precedents,andthefurywith whichheregardedallchangestohisinitialdesign.Viceroy’sHouseisthereforethephysical manifestationofthreedreams:theimperialist,theorientalist,andLutyens’own.Aftertheocial inaugurationofthecapital,SirHerbertBakerconcludedthathehadbeenappointedmainlyto “exerciseawholesomecontrolofthewillfulmasterfulnessofagenius”93Instead,inthewakeoftheir nal,friendship-endingquarrelovertheKing’sWayapproach,Lutyenswasleftfreetoconcentrate“his extraordinarypowersandhisimmenseindustryandenthusiasmontheabstractandgeometric qualitiestothedisregardandconsiderationofhumanandnationalsentimentandtheirexpressionand hisart”

Thesingle-mindedfocusofNewDelhi’simperialbuildersonthecreationofctionalized Anglo-Indianarchitecturedidindeedleavebehindtheneedsofboththeindividualandthenation. Despitethis,thebuildingstheyproduced,howeverchangedorrepurposed,havemorethanachieved theirgoalofleavingaphysicalrecordoftheirruleinIndia.ThoughtheoriginaloccupantsofViceroy’s House,likethoseofthepalaces,templesandforticationswhichinspiredit,havelongsinceleftIndia, thebuildinghassincebecomeanvitalarchitecturalmonumenttoIndia’simperialandcolonialpast.

91Irving,IndianSummer,170-171.

92IñigoBassarate,“EdwinLutyensinSpain:ThePalaceofElGuadalperal”ArchitecturalHistory60(2017),1

93Irving,IndianSummer,147.

94Volwahsen,ImperialDelhi,28

Bibliography

Baker,SirHerbert SirHerbertBakertoSirEdwinLutyen,Pretoria,SouthAfrica,21October1909

Bassrate,Iñigo.“EdwinLutyensinSpain:ThePalaceofElGuadalperal.”ArchitecturalHistory60 (2017):303–39.

Baviskar,Anita.“TheFormalGardens:EnglishFlowersinanIslamicCharbagh,”inTheFirstGarden oftheRepublic,30-66, ed.AnitaBaviskar.NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision,Governmentof India,2016.

Beaton,Cecil.OﬃcialPhotograph.1944.Photoprint.ImperialWarMuseums,London, https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205402872.

Bird,Tom LettersHome(1939-1946),privatelypublished,qtd inChandra,“AHomefortheRaj”

Butler,A.S.G.TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,Volume2:Gardens,Delhi,Washington.London: CountryLife,1950

Chandra,Yaswahini.“AHomefortheRaj,”inLifeatRashtrapatiBhavan,30-56,ed.Sudah GopalakrishnanandYashaswiniChandra.NewDelhi:PublicationsDivision,Governmentof India,2016

Dalrymple,William.WhiteMughals:LoveandBetrayalinEighteenth-CenturyIndia.NewYork: PenguinBooks,2002.

Gimour,David.Curzon:ImperialStatesman.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,1994.

HardingeofPenshurst,Lord.Note,Calcutta13January1913.

HardingeofPenshurst,Lord.LordHardingetoSirHerbertBaker,Calcutta,30August1913.

Hussey,Christopher.TheLifeofSirEdwinLutyens.London:AntiqueCollectorsClub,1989.

Irving,RobertGrant.IndianSummer:Lutyens,Baker,andImperialDelhi.NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress,1981.

Judd,Denis.TheLifeandTimeofGeorgeV.London:Weidenfeld&NicolsonLtd,1993.

Koch,Ebba.“TheArchitecturalForms,”inFatehpur-Sikri,121-149, ed.MichaelBrandandGlenD. Lowry.Mumbai:MARGPublications,1987.

Metcalf,ThomasR AnImperialVision:IndianArchitectureandBritain’sRaj London:Faberand Faber,1989.

Michell,George.MughalArchitecture&Gardens.Mumbai:TheShoestringPublisher,2011.

Nath,Aman.DomeoverIndia:RashtrapatiBhavan.NewDelhi:IndiaBookHousePvtLtd,2002.

Ridley,Jane “Lutyens,NewDelhi,andIndianArchitecture”inLutyensAbroad,181-190,ed AndrewHopkinsandGavinStamp London:TheBritishSchoolatRome,2002

EdwardW.Said,“OrientalismReconsidered,”inCulturalCritique,no.1(1985),92.

SenGupta,Subhadra.DiscoverthemagniﬁcentworldofRashtrapatiBhavan.NewDelhi:Publications Division,GovernmentofIndia,2016.

“SirEdwinLutyensattheAA”TheArchitecturalAssociationJournalxlviii,no546(August1932),66

Tillotson,G.H.T.TheRajputPalaces:DevelopmentofanArchitecturalStyle,1450-1750.NewHaven: YaleUniversityPress,1987.

Volwahsen,Andreas.ImperialDelhi:TheBritishCapitaloftheIndianEmpire.NewYork:Presetel, 2004.

Wildehide,Elizabeth SirEdwinLutyens:DesigningintheEnglishTradition NewYork:HarryN Abrams,Inc.,Publishers,2000.

Appendix:Images

Figure1:RashtrapatiBhavanseenfromtheeasternendoftheGreatCourt.

[PhotoCredit:iStock,TheTribuneIndia]

Figure2:TheIndo-Saracenicstyle’scombinationofEuropeanhistoricalandIndiantraditional architectureisevidentintheLahoreMuseum,Lahore,Pakistan(1894).

[PhotoCredit:TheLahoreMuseum]

Figure3:PreliminaryElevationofViceroy'sHouse,1912.

vedtable.

ThesandstoneLotusThroneintheDiwan-i-KhassatFatehpurSikri [PhotoCredit:lensmatter,Flickr]

Figure5:

proachesbyW.H.Nicholls,ArchitectMemberofthe ’preferredschemeisthebottomimage.

[PhotoCredit:WH Nicholls,inIrving,IndianSummer,152]

Figure7:TheDomeofViceroy’sHouse,1931

[PhotoCredit:ArthurGill,RIBApix]

Figure8:TheThirdStupa,Sanchi.

[PhotoCredit:PhotoDharma,WikimediaCommons]

Figure9:TheDelhiOrderontheStateEntranceFront

[PhotoCredit:RobertIrving]

Figure10:ThepiersofthekitchenentranceontheSouthFront

[PhotoCredit:RobertIrving]

TheDiwan-i-KhassattheRedFort,Delhi.

[PhotoCredit:AmritPasricha]

Lutyens’versionofMughaljaliscreens

[PhotoCredit:JoginderSingh]

Figure11:

Figure12:

Figure13:Theroundformsofthetenniscourtscreen(alongtheLongGarden)werepossiblybased ontheshapeofLutyens’trademarkglasses.

[PhotoCredit:ArthurGill,RIBApix]

Figure14:TheShalimarGardensinLahore,Pakistan,areoneofthemostfamousMughalgardensin SouthAsia

[PhotoCredit:SeharKhurshid,WikimediaCommons]

Figure15:TheMughalGardensseenfromabove;intheforegroundareLutyens’famoustiered fountains

[PhotoCredit:CecilStoughton,JFKPresidentialLibrary]

Figure16:PlanoftheFormalGardensandpartofthegroundoor.

[PhotoCredit:TheStudioofSirEdwinLutyens,inASG Butler,TheArchitectureofSirEdwinLutyens,PlateLXXXV]

Figure17:TheBallroomasitwascompleted,beforetheadditionofthefrescoes,1931

[PhotoCredit:ArthurGill,RIBApix]

Figure18:TheAshokaHallin2016,withboththeShah’spainting(topcenter)andthefrescoesby Colonnelo,commissionedbyLadyWillingdonin1933,intact

[PhotoCredit:IndiaTodayArchive]

Figure19:Lutyens’passionforplayfuldetailsmanifestsitselfeveninthenurserylights

[PhotoCredit:EddieRyle-Hodges]

Figure20:TheCardRoom.

[PhotoCredit:ArthurGill,RIBApix]

Figure21:LadyWavell,penultimateVicereineofIndia,intheentrancetotheStateBallroom,byCecil Beaton,1944

[PhotoCredit:CecilBeaton,ImperialWarMuseums]

Figure22:OneofLutyens’1896watercolorsketches,Châteaud’Ease,enAir,surFleuvedesRêves. [PhotoCredit:SirEdwinLutyens,inVolwahsen,ImperialDelhi,97]