A painting by British artist Mortimer Menpes depicts an elaborately decorated elephant and two robed men in magenta mounted on it holding a multicoloured flag. And two standing on the ground with long spears, holding both its tusks. The setting is the second coronation durbar held in 1903 British India. “It was almost too brilliant, too bright, too strange. One’s brain could not take it all in,” wrote Dorothy, the artist’s daughter, who was also in attendance, about the event.
The painting hangs at DAG, Delhi, as part of its ongoing exhibition, ‘Delhi Durbar: Empire, Display and the Possession of History’, open to the public till November 6. The works on display include paintings, photographs, letters, postal stamps, maps and blueprints, medals, admittance tickets and limited-edition collectible figurines, all picked by historians Swapna Liddle and Rana Safvi, after having combed through DAG archives. They offer a close look at the three durbars--spectacular displays of royalty and power, in which the British drew heavily from the imageries and idioms of the Mughals they had dethroned.
Historians Swapna Liddle and Rana SafviA Point to Prove The first durbar, which set the model for the ones that followed, was held in 1877 and saw the bestowal of the title of “Kaiser-e-Hind” (Empress of India) on Queen Victoria. The pomp and show were aimed at proving a point—that the British had complete authority over Indians while doing so in a way the people could identify with. Safvi cites the example of a letter the British government had sent to the Secretary of State for India in London ahead of the event in which it expresses its confidence in “commanding the obedience of Indians” while wishing to “rule through their affection”. “It shows how the British negotiated their role and rule in India,” she says.
For Ira Mukhoty, historian and author, the durbars were a blatant appropriation of the symbolism of the Mughals. The use of elephants in the ceremonies struck her as having a particular significance. “Elephants were considered royal animals. The Mughal emperor Akbar was fascinated by them and they were exclusively kept for the royalty to take out parades on,” she says. “The British mounting elephants was a symbolic act of their taking over,” she adds. The exhibition also traces the colonial history of Delhi, providing a rationale of why and how the city was chosen over Calcutta, the British Indian capital at the time, for the durbars.
A Grand Marketplace Delhi provided geographic and political advantages like no other city could. Mukhoty says it was what led to the building of the walled city of Shahjahanabad, which was conceptualised as “a symbol of the entire world”. Delhi was declared the Britsh India capital at the durbar of 1911. Chandni Chowk, as seen in a photograph taken by British photographer Samuel Bourne in the 1860s, looks more or less the same today. And Delhiites can still agree with what Sir Syed Ahmad Khan said of the market over 150 years ago: “There is nothing in the world which is not sold here.” Numerous other photographs and illustrations at the exhibition, many of them over 100 years old, offer visitors a look at the various monuments and locations in the city that have stood the test of time.
“The Delhi durbars were held to legitimise and popularise British rule in India. The exhibition aims to give visitors a view of how the country was seen from the colonial perspective and how it can be reinterpreted from a modern viewpoint,” says Safvi. The chief chroniclers of the colonial period, especially of grand events like the durbars, excluding a few, were the British themselves. Mukhoty stresses the importance of always keeping the context in mind while approaching colonial histories.
“All of history is somebody’s point of view,” she says, “but it is important that archives and historical knowledge be accessible so that people can find out things for themselves.” She believes the exhibition is a step towards this. Mukhoty admits the discomfort in remembering a colonial past. “We are a nation that has not really deconstructed its whole history and moved on. We quickly adapted to our new identity as a modern republic but many of our problems stem from our complex history. We cannot ignore them. They should be addressed,” she says.
