From a Mughal Bagh to a Colonial Archaeological Garden to a UNESCO World Heritage Property and everything else in between: the many lives of Badshah Shahjahan’s Hayat Baksh Bagh

ABSTRACT

The article explores the transformation of the Indian subcontinent’s historic gardens as power changed hands from the Mughals to the British, first as the East India Company (henceforth EIC) and subsequently as the Crown, thus altering not only the political scenario but also the subcontinent’s cultural landscape. In the aftermath of the 1857 Indian uprising against colonial rule, the victorious colonial state undertook an urban remodelling programme across the subcontinent’s cities in a bid to stamp its authority. This resulted in the introduction of metropole-inspired forms of urbanity that included leisure. As a cultural import, leisure was spatialised in the subcontinent, like its British counterpart, via the public park. Colonial institutions notably the municipality and Archaeological Survey of India (henceforth ASI) laid out public parks that were referred to as municipal gardens and archaeological gardens respectively. These were either laid out as new ventures or by remodelling Mughal gardens based on metropolitan, notably English garden design ideas. The article argues that colonial interventions transformed Mughal gardens to produce a multi-layered landscape that evoked several but fragmented meanings. Further, it urges an unravelling of the layers of Mughal gardens to appreciate their complexity for charting a holistic approach for their conservation and management. One such venture is examined in detail i.e. the transformation of the seventeenth-century imperial Mughal leisure garden, Hayat Baksh Bagh, in Delhi’s Red Fort, first as a Mughal leisure garden, then as a colonial military space and archaeological garden and finally as a contemporary tourist site. The need to unravel the garden’s many culturally diverse layers is underscored for a more nuanced site interpretation to facilitate its conservation in keeping with contemporary global and national conservation discourses.¹

Keywords:

• Mughal Bagh
• Public Park
• remodelling
• Municipal Park
• Archaeological Garden
• Hayat Baksh Bagh

PRIMARY SOURCES

	ASI Archaeological Survey of India, 1906. Annual Report 1903–4. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1908	Annual Report 1904–5. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1909	Annual Report 1905–6. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1909	Annual Report 1906–7. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1911	Annual Report 1907–8. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1914a	Annual Report 1909–10. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1914b	Annual Report 1910–11. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1914c	Annual Report of the Director-General of Archaeology, Part I, 1911–12. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
1914d	Delhi Fort: a guide to the buildings and gardens (Calcutta).
1915	Annual Report 1911–12 (Calcutta).
	Archaeological Survey of India & Cultural Resource Conservation Initiative, 2009. Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan, Red Fort, Delhi. Delhi: ASI & CRCI.
	Archaeological Survey of India, 2014. National Policy for the Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains. Archaeological Survey of India (New Delhi).

Notes

1 This article is a revised and enlarged version of a paper titled ‘From a Mughal Bagh to a Colonial Archaeological Garden and everything else in between: Unravelling the layers of Badshah Shahjahan’s Hayat Baksh Bagh in the Mughal Qila at Delhi’ presented by the author as an invited speaker at the conference ‘Gardens: History, Reception, and Scientific Analyses’ organised by the Institute for Advanced Research, Nagoya University, on the 23–24th February 2019.

2 Scholarship on Victorian public parks is very extensive. The following may be referred to: Malchow 1985; Jordan 1994; Taylor 1995 & Conway, 1995.

3 The uprising, one of the most significant events in British colonial history, was variously known as the Mutiny from the British perspective; Ghadar/Baghavat (rebellion) in coeval Indian world view and First War of Independence in independent India.

4 The Mughal miniature dated 1633 is an Album Painting attributed to Bal Chand and held in a private collection. The description is based on a reproduction in Welch, 1978, pp. 110–11.

5 The Mughal miniature dated 1640–50 is an Album Painting attributed to Bichitr and held in The Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. The description is based on a reproduction in Welch 1978, pp. 108–9.

6 See Cohn 1983, pp. 165–210.

7 A prominent source is a map, titled ‘Plan of the City’, archived in the British Library as IOR: X/1659. It has been published in Losty 2012. It has also been redrawn and annotated in English by Ehlers, Krafft & Malik as ‘Shahjahanabad: Delhi around 1850’ and forms an accompaniment to Ehlers & Krafft 1993. Further, Koch has reconstructed the garden’s layout. See, Koch 2001, p. 224, fig. 8.20. This article relies on the map ‘Shahjahanabad: Delhi Around 1850’, Koch’s reconstruction and fieldwork to reconstruct the seventeenth-century garden.

8 Koch has stated that one Shahjahani Gaz was equivalent to thirty-two inches. See, Koch 2001, p. 202, footn. 68.

9 ASI’s account of Shah Burj pavilion describes it as part of Shah Burj and not a garden pavilion. See, ASI, 1914a, The Shah Burj, Delhi Fort, pp. 25–32. Koch has, meanwhile, described it as a garden pavilion that with Moti Mahal and the pavilion adjoining the Hammam completed Hayat Baksh Bagh’s imperial riverfront scheme. See Koch 2001.

10 While coeval Mughal sources do not explicitly indicate which pavilion is Sawan and Bhadon, colonial era drawings of the Red Fort and ASI records use the names interchangeably. This article uses the names as indicated on ASI’s measured drawings of the pavilions and verified by fieldwork. Both confirm that the pavilion at the termination of the northern Khiyaban is Sawan while the one to its south is Bhadon.

11 See Koch 1987, pp. 29–56.

12 The description draws on the illustration as reproduced in Koch 2001, p. 156, fig. 19.

13 The painting dated 1735 is attributed to Nidha Mal and held in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The description is based on a reproduction in Sharma & Dalrymple 2012, pp. 80–1.

14 The description is based on the following cartographic sources: Map ‘Delhi Artillery and Infantry Barracks’ Punjab Delhi Division and District, 1869, archived at National Archives of India, New Delhi, fo. 178 as reproduced in Mukherji 2003, pp. 206– 7; Map ‘Restoration of Ancient Garden in the Delhi Fort’ archived at ASI, Delhi Circle, Drawing Archives, no. 55 and Map ‘Plan of the Delhi Palace’ Surveyor General’s Office, Calcutta, 1862 archived at ASI, Delhi Circle, Drawing Archives, No. 114 and reproduced as Fig. 8.

15 For a complete account of the conservation work, see, ASI, 1914a, The Shah Burj, Delhi Fort, pp. 25–32.

16 The account of the garden draws on the CCMP’s recommendations as outlined in the report available at http://asi.nic.in/comprehensive-conservation-management-plan-for-red-fort-delhi-ccmp/