Delhi - History and Geography with a view to Defense issues

[punit]

How about patiliputra (patna) .. the capital of mauryans and Guptas !!

 

[Android]

IMO Bangalore should be our national capital

 

[punit]

IMO Bangalore should be our national capital

Nope Bangalore Plz .. have mercy on us . its already overcrowded beyond limit.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Lol N.Korean govt is such a bully.

Delhi was chosen because it was convenient. The structures were already in place and everything else was readymade by the Britishers.
I am sure Pakistan at the same time had to start from the scratch to build Islamabad.


Why not??
Nagpur is far away from Pak and China,and before any missile reaches Nagpur it can be intercepted as there would be sufficient time.
Historically India had 2 sets of capitals Agra-Shimla(Mughal) Kolkata-Shimla and later Delhi-Shimla (British era).
Theres a reason why Nagpur was selected for ordnance factories.
I would pitch for Nagpur or say Jabalpur.
Btw did I just deviate this thread???
Oopsie!

Well @levina; to start with the Capital of Pakistan was Karachi. And might have remained that way. Later there was a strong Punjabi lobby that wanted the Capital to be shifted out. Firstly since Sind was beginning to get prominence because of the location of Karachi within that province, and to a lesser extent that Karachi was fast becoming a 'magnet' for the Mohajir Emigres who were less comfortable in settling down in West Punjab just as the Punjabis were less keen to host them. This Lobby to shift the Capital grew stronger after the demise of Mr.Jinnah and got the greatest traction in Ayub Khan's time. If Mr.Jinnah had lived longer, would this shift have occurred?

Now about New Delhi, if you think that GoI followed in the footsteps of the British, then it can be similarly argued that the British followed in the footsteps of the Mughals. And that shift by the British from Kolkata to Delhi occurred only after the British Crown took over from the East India Company. The East India Company might have remained contented to continue with Kolkata as the Capital; even though it was quite a unhealthy marshy locale. Who knows, the Company might have even set up Capital in Surat, but for the fact that they were being continually harried and harassed by the Marathas there!
But I'm of the opinion that it was better to continue with New Delhi as the capital, since we save a huge amount of money not having to set up all the paraphernalia from scratch. Now just consider what Seemandhra will have to go through just to set up a new Capital!

About the dual capital Concept; that was resorted to by the British only because they could not stand the vagaries of the weather in the capitals that they had chosen. So they would shift to Shimla in summer; quite a needlessly expensive and inefficient exercise. Likewise the Brits would shift Capital from Mumbai to Pune in the monsoon. Even now the Govt. of Maharashtra shifts to Nagpur for the monsoon session of the legislature.

 

[Contrarian]

But I'm of the opinion that it was better to continue with New Delhi as the capital, since we save a huge amount of money not having to set up all the paraphernalia from scratch. Now just consider what Seemandhra will have to go through just to set up a new Capital!

About the dual capital Concept; that was resorted to by the British only because they could not stand the vagaries of the weather in the capitals that they had chosen. So they would shift to Shimla in summer; quite a needlessly expensive and inefficient exercise. Likewise the Brits would shift Capital from Mumbai to Pune in the monsoon. Even now the Govt. of Maharashtra shifts to Nagpur for the monsoon session of the legislature.

It is FAR better to setup a new Capital and away from existing population center so that new infrastructure is made. As you know in India, new infrastructure is a rarity and a privilege, not a regular affair as it is in other countries.

If India had been making new cities and new infrastructure like China has to accommodate new population, we would not have the shanties, unplanned, overpopulated hell holes we call cities. What we have today are cities with double, triple and quadruple the population that they have the capacity for.

Seemandhra will not have to 'go through' anything, it is a good thing that is happening to them. They would build a planned city from scratch, that would offer a high quality of life for its citizens in a decade.

Look at Chandigarh, arguably the best city in entire Punjab and Haryana. Peaceful, with adequate space and managable population.

That is how it should be.

 

[punit]

It is FAR better to setup a new Capital and away from existing population center so that new infrastructure is made. As you know in India, new infrastructure is a rarity and a privilege, not a regular affair as it is in other countries.

If India had been making new cities and new infrastructure like China has to accommodate new population, we would not have the shanties, unplanned, overpopulated hell holes we call cities. What we have today are cities with double, triple and quadruple the population that they have the capacity for.

Seemandhra will not have to 'go through' anything, it is a good thing that is happening to them. They would build a planned city from scratch, that would offer a high quality of life for its citizens in a decade.

Look at Chandigarh, arguably the best city in entire Punjab and Haryana. Peaceful, with adequate space and managable population.

That is how it should be.

so where should we built this brand new city!! which state !!

 

[Contrarian]

so where should we built this brand new city!! which state !!

Madhya Pradesh or Vidharba region of Maharashtra.
That is the geographical center of India and the land is not as fertile as other regions.

Or maybe Odisha because of underdevelopment there, having the Capital there would completely change its fortunes in a decade or two.

IMO Bangalore should be our national capital

And why would you want that? Because you are from Bangalore?
By that token, Delhi is far better than Bangalore.

If it has to change, it should be a new City, ideally in Central or Center East India where it can have maximum effect of reducing poverty, bringing investment, spurring growth, not to mention vast amounts of available land.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Well @levina; to start with the Capital of Pakistan was Karachi. And might have remained that way. Later there was a strong Punjabi lobby that wanted the Capital to be shifted out. Firstly since Sind was beginning to get prominence because of the location of Karachi within that province, and to a lesser extent that Karachi was fast becoming a 'magnet' for the Mohajir Emigres who were less comfortable in settling down in West Punjab just as the Punjabis were less keen to host them. This Lobby to shift the Capital grew stronger after the demise of Mr.Jinnah and got the greatest traction in Ayub Khan's time. If Mr.Jinnah had lived longer, would this shift have occurred?

I do not know how you can substantiate a lot of what you say. You may come across this on certain MQM type websites, but then MQM people are perpetual victims.

1. The shift of capital was not because of any particular lobby as such. Punjabis then did not carry as much weight. If they did, the location would definitely be different.

2. The ostensible reasons provided by federal government under Ayub Khan were A) The need to break the co-location of middle & senior bureaucracy and major business interests that were felt to be unhealthy and conducive to corruption. B) The difficulty in defending Karachi in case of war. C) The vast distance that most people would have to travel in order to make a visit to Federal government offices.

3. The unsaid reason was Margalla's proximity to Kashmir for various reasons.

4. Muhajirs were welcomed in Punjab too. Most families settled in Punjab. Urdu-speakers preferred Karachi for reasons that had nothing to do with them being welcomed or not. To say that Punjabis were less keen to host Muhajirs is preposterous, misleading, counter-factual, and malicious. @Armstrong can tell you how race/cast/origin-neutral Punjabis are.

5. Ayub Khan had personal interest in moving capital nearer his home-base. The site was his selection. There were other alternatives.

6. If you do not know the back-ground of some issue and are not able to do justice, its best not to cockily proclaim stuff of which you can not have direct knowledge.

7. Half your post was OT and I did not delete it because the othere half has merit relating to the topic. I hope this OT stops with my post. If you must contest my clarifications, feel free to open a thread and invite me there.

 

[wolfschanzze]

<MOD EDIT> I have created a new thread per @levina's request, since the original thread was getting derailed and the OT posts were valuable in themselves as they relate to Delhi. A quick search reveals that such a topic did not exist before. Considering importance of Delhi in history and geography of South Asia (not just India), I hope that this would be a valuable thread. I hope nobody trolls this thread and that nobody spoils the harmonious atmosphere established by the originating posts. @janon @kadamba-warrior , and others please provide your valuable input <MOD EDIT>



Nagpur, anyone?

Actually,Hyderabad or Bangalore seem the best option.As they were considered safe, Most of the defence labs , research and hitech Industries are in these cities or nearby it.

 

[Contrarian]

3. The unsaid reason was Margalla's proximity to Kashmir for various reasons.

What difference does that make?

Pakistan wanted to push the terrorists from LoC. Having a capital nearby makes zero difference to that effort. They could have done that even from Karachi or Lahore or any place.

 

[Chak Bamu]

What difference does that make?

Pakistan wanted to push the terrorists from LoC. Having a capital nearby makes zero difference to that effort. They could have done that even from Karachi or Lahore or any place.

1. Its so obvious that you've skimmed over it.
2. Its totally OT.
3. Lets drop it.

 

[Levina]

@Chak Bamu
Thank you so much for opening this thread.

Well @levina; to start with the Capital of Pakistan was Karachi. And might have remained that way. Later there was a strong Punjabi lobby that wanted the Capital to be shifted out. Firstly since Sind was beginning to get prominence because of the location of Karachi within that province, and to a lesser extent that Karachi was fast becoming a 'magnet' for the Mohajir Emigres who were less comfortable in settling down in West Punjab just as the Punjabis were less keen to host them. This Lobby to shift the Capital grew stronger after the demise of Mr.Jinnah and got the greatest traction in Ayub Khan's time. If Mr.Jinnah had lived longer, would this shift have occurred?

Now about New Delhi, if you think that GoI followed in the footsteps of the British, then it can be similarly argued that the British followed in the footsteps of the Mughals. And that shift by the British from Kolkata to Delhi occurred only after the British Crown took over from the East India Company. The East India Company might have remained contented to continue with Kolkata as the Capital; even though it was quite a unhealthy marshy locale. Who knows, the Company might have even set up Capital in Surat, but for the fact that they were being continually harried and harassed by the Marathas there!
But I'm of the opinion that it was better to continue with New Delhi as the capital, since we save a huge amount of money not having to set up all the paraphernalia from scratch. Now just consider what Seemandhra will have to go through just to set up a new Capital!

About the dual capital Concept; that was resorted to by the British only because they could not stand the vagaries of the weather in the capitals that they had chosen. So they would shift to Shimla in summer; quite a needlessly expensive and inefficient exercise. Likewise the Brits would shift Capital from Mumbai to Pune in the monsoon. Even now the Govt. of Maharashtra shifts to Nagpur for the monsoon session of the legislature.

Well there's another reason why Delhi was chosen by Britishers.
You must be aware that Calcutta served as Indian capital under British Raj for about 150yrs.So britishers didnt leave a major port just because they could not handle the filth,there's more to the story.
It so happened that britishers in their typical divide and rule style in1905 cleaved Bengal which was a massive and powerful province centered on Calcutta.
The decision inflamed nationalist sentiment, leading to a call for a boycott of British goods and, eventually, bombings and political assassinations in Calcutta.This was the reason why Britishers were in a hurry to change the capital. King george kept declaration of Delhi as the next capital as a well guarded secret till a very famous darbar was called upon during 1911 or so.

But I would say shifting to Delhi worked in our favor, it took them 20years to set up everything in place (i dont remember the names of architects who planned Delhi) and also WW1 hit Britishers hard.
Delhi was inaugrated in 1931 and in next 16years they decided to leave India.
Delhi is a lucky capital I must say!!!

But post independence our politicians chose Delhi because it was the most convenient thing to do.
I still see our Rashyrapati bhavan and Parliament as symbols of colonialism.

We should have made our own new Capital. Nagpur would have been an ideal place.

 

[punit]

Actually,Hyderabad or Bangalore seem the best option.As they were considered safe, Most of the defence labs , research and hitech Industries are in these cities or nearby it.

both Hyd and Bnag ae burstin at its seams. the available infra is not enough. its better to build a new city from scratch.either in central india or in south.

 

[Chak Bamu]

@Chak Bamu
Thank you so much for opening this thread.



Well there's another reason why Delhi was chosen by Britishers.
You must be aware that Calcutta served as Indian capital under British Raj for about 150yrs.So britishers didnt leave a major port just because they could not handle the filth,there's more to the story.
It so happened that britishers in their typical divide and rule style in1905 cleaved Bengal which was a massive and powerful province centered on Calcutta.
The decision inflamed nationalist sentiment, leading to a call for a boycott of British goods and, eventually, bombings and political assassinations in Calcutta.This was the reason why Britishers were in a hurry to change the capital. King george kept declaration of Delhi as the next capital as a well guarded secret till a very famous darbar was called upon during 1911 or so.

But I would say shifting to Delhi worked in our favor, it took them 20years to set up everything in place (i dont remember the names of architects who planned Delhi) and also WW1 hit Britishers hard.
Delhi was inaugrated in 1931 and in next 16years they decided to leave India.
Delhi is a lucky capital I must say!!!

But post independence our politicians chose Delhi because it was the most convenient thing to do.
I still see our Rashyrapati bhavan and Parliament as symbols of colonialism.

We should have made our own new Capital. Nagpur would have been an ideal place.

I think y'all should just forget about changing capitals business. Nobody is having a war any time soon. China, Pakistan, and India are all nuclear powers with missile technology. Shifting capital for sake of buying time in case of incoming missiles is quite pointless. Technological level possessed by foes today should not have you make a decision with very long term repercussions. If there is no overt dissatisfaction with Delhi, then you should just forget about moving the capital. It is going to be a can of worms, I tell you.

Let us focus a bit on history, geography, culture, and heritage of Delhi..... So who lives in Delhi? Anyone on PDF? There must be a few here....

 

[Geek]

I think India should build a new well planned city for this somewhere in MP or Karanatka