A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay

320 Pages·2011·12.268 MB·English

by  Preeti Chopra

A Joint Enterprise

A Joint Enterprise
Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay
Preeti Chopra
University of Minnesota Press
Minneapolis
London
The University of Minnesota Press appreciates funding to support the publication of
this book. A subvention for this publication has been awarded through a competitive
grant from the University of Wisconsin–Madison Provost’s Office and the Graduate
School; Graduate School funding has been provided by the Wisconsin Alumni Research
Foundation (WARF) with income generated by patents filed through WARF by University
of Wisconsin–Madison faculty and staff. Additional funding was provided by the Center
for South Asia, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Frontispiece: Island of Bombay, 1909, plan. From The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island,
volume 1, compiled by S. M. Edwardes (Bombay: Times Press, 1909).
Copyright 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Published by the University of Minnesota Press
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520
http://www.upress.umn.edu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Chopra, Preeti.
A joint enterprise : Indian elites and the making of British Bombay / Preeti Chopra.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8166-7036-9 (hc : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-8166-7037-6 (pb :
alk. paper)
1. Architecture and society—India—Bombay—History—19th century.
2. Architecture and society—India—Bombay—History—20th century. 3. Social
ecology—India—Bombay. 4. Colonial cities—India—Bombay. 5. Bombay
(India)—Buildings, structures, etc. 6. Bombay (India)—Social conditions.
I. Title. II. Title: Indian elites and the making of British Bombay.
NA2543.S6C49 2011
720.954'79209034—dc22 2010047979
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
The University of Minnesota is an equal-opportunity educator and employer.
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To my parents,
Major General Uttam Chand Chopra,
PVSM (Retd.), and Mrs. Kushal Chopra
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Author’s Note ix
Introduction xi
1
A Joint Enterprise 1
2
Anglo-Indian Architecture and the Meaning of Its Styles 31
3
The Biography of an Unknown Native Engineer 73
4
Dividing Practices in Bombay’s Hospitals
and Lunatic Asylums 117
5
An Unforeseen Landscape of Contradictions 159
6
Of Gods and Mortal Heroes: Conundrums of the
Secular Landscape of Colonial Bombay 191
Acknowledgments 231
Notes 235
Bibliography 263
Index 281
This page intentionally left blank
Author’s Note
This text uses both the words “native” and “Indian” to
refer to non-Europeans, the latter term coming to play as nationalist themes
resonate more strongly in the narrative. The choice of the term “native” needs
some explanation, as Raymond Williams in Keywords (1983) shows that it can
be used both pejoratively and in a positive sense. As Williams points out, “It was
particularly common as a term for ‘non-Europeans’ in the period of colonialism
and imperialism, but it was also used of the inhabitants of various countries and
regions of Britain and North America, and (in a sense synonymous with the
disparaging use of ‘locals’) of the inhabitants of a place in which some superior
person had settled. Yet all the time, alongside this use, ‘native’ remained a very
positive word when applied to one’s own place or person” (215).
In Bombay, “native” was used both disparagingly and positively. Members
of the colonial regime commonly referred to non-Europeans as “natives,” but
it cannot be assumed that every use of this term by Europeans was necessarily
negative. Bombay’s local inhabitants also used “native” when referring to them-
selves as a collectivity and before they saw themselves as “Indians.” This term
allowed them to see themselves as part of a larger community beyond their
specific caste and religious affiliations. The term was used in a positive sense by
“natives” unless a specific group, such as the Parsis at the end of the nineteenth
century, no longer wanted to be included in the category of “native” and thus
found the term pejorative. As Williams notes, the word “indigenous” has often
replaced “native.”
ix