The topic of this article is a bit unusual and not one of my routine focus areas such as security, foreign policy, and diplomacy. However, in the intuitive crevices of my subconscious mind, it is deeply intertwined with national security and foreign policy. Also, let me confess that this issue has dwelled and is deeply entrenched in my mind over the last 15 years. On several occasions, I thought of sharing it with my readers. At times, I did discuss this with my friends, intellectuals, religious scholars, and strategic experts in random and casual conversations; however, this is the first time I am presenting this thought in a structured manner for the readers.
Why India Needs a New Capital
This question may sound either extremely disturbing, revolutionary, or even lunatic to many readers. Such reactions are normal. However, I will try to answer these questions in this piece. My theoretical explanation discussing and analysing the whys and hows of my revolutionary or lunatic proposal ventures into history, strategy, sociology, astrology, and spirituality.
Never a Capital of Any Powerful Indian King
To begin with, arguments drawn from history can help build a robust case for proposing the idea of a new capital. Delhi was never the capital city of any of the powerful and legendary Indian empires and kings in both written and recorded history, and the unwritten and believed history. Lord Rama’s capital was in Ayodhya and Lord Krishna’s seat of power was in Dwarka (Gujarat). Interestingly, he was the most powerful king of his age, and he abandoned Mathura, a city that is closer to Delhi and was vulnerable to frequent attacks by his adversary, the demon king Jarasandh. Also, Mathura as a Yaduvanshi capital witnessed the rise of deceitful imposters like Kansa who made the Yadava capital city a hotbed of political intrigues and conspiracies.
Later, in the Harappan civilisation, flourishing urban centres thrived in Gujarat (Dholavira) and Sindh (Mohenjo Daro) and a few in North India, such as Rakhigarhi. Delhi does not find a mention. Among the 16 Mahajanpadas, the Magadha region in today’s Bihar became the most powerful kingdom. The first Indian empire of Nandas was in Magadha, followed by those of the Mauryas. Notably, Alexander had a tough time dealing with the hill tribal kingdoms of the Punjab-Afghanistan region. His victories are a matter of academic debate; however, after his much-touted victories against the Indian king Porus, his army was worn out, fatigued and exhausted. He had no energy left to chase the mighty Indian king with 60,000 elephants, sitting 3000 kms away in a strategically built capital city of Patliputra, surrounded by rivers on three sides. Imagine, if Delhi had been India’s capital, Alexander would have been much emboldened after his initial minor successes and moved ahead to attack the capital city.
Likewise, other great Indian kingdoms like Guptas, Satvahanas, Cholas, Gujar-Pratiharas etc. never had a capital in Delhi. Guptas, known for their golden era, ruled from Prayagraj, Satvahanas from Pratishthana (today’s Aurangabad region), Cholas from Uraiyur (modern Tiruchirappalli) and Chalukyas from Aihole (Karnataka) and Badami. King Harshvardhana, after whom India’s glorious ancient era started declining, also ruled from Kannauj. Notably, with time, India’s seat of power in North India moved from Patliputra and Prayagraj to Kannauj under Harvardhana and finally to Delhi under Prithviraj Chauhan, the last Hindu ruler of Delhi. As we all know, after his defeat began an era of Islamic conquest, temple destructions and forced conversions, and the decline of Hindu glory, culture, and socio-religious institutions. The legendary king of Indian stories like Betal Pachisi and Singhasan Battisi, and many folklores, Raja Vikramaditya ruled from Ujjaini. Later, another glorious king Bhoj Parmar also ruled from Ujjaini.
Ancient-era Indians had a highly developed sense of sub-continental geography. The ancient literature has umpteen references to various cities like Varanasi, Paithan, Patliputra, Badami, Kaling etc. Ancient religious texts like Mahabharata and Ramayana have detailed descriptions of 16 Mahajanpadas, their capitals and the other centres of economic, religious, and cultural importance. Even foreign territories like Bahlika (North-western regions), Sri Lanka, Java Sumatra and Siam have been discussed. The 12 Jyotirlingas and 52 Shaktipeethas also demonstrate a highly refined understanding of the geography of ancient Indians. Given that, the very fact that Delhi does not find a serious mention as a city of strategic, economic, or religious importance, certainly raises a question – why it was considered suitable to be a capital city?
From a strategic point of view, it can be argued that Delhi could never be a great choice for the capital city because India faced major invasions from the Northwest. After crossing the Hindukush mountains, the invaders could easily reach the outskirts of Delhi within a month or two. The battles fought in Panipat by Prithviraj Chauhan, Ibrahim Lodhi and Marathas always gave a psychological edge to the enemy. The very fact that the main capital city was just a step away from the Panipat might have boosted the confidence of the enemy. At the same time, it would have put great mental pressure on the defending side as they were likely to perceive the Panipat battle as the last and the only chance to ward off the enemy which they could not afford to lose at any cost. Also, the capital city closer to the frontier areas was likely to make the border kings and subjects complacent that they would be saved by the king and his huge army, located a few hundred miles away. On the other hand, having a capital city in a place like Patliputra, Ujjaini and Prayagraj imparted a sense of urgency in building robust self-defence mechanism against the invaders as the royal armies might take time to traverse the huge distance and come to their rescue. Also, capital city far away from the borders dampened the hopes of the foreign invaders. Facing stiff resistance on the borders, the foreign invaders felt demoralised and often found themselves reluctant to move forward.
Moreover, if they faced a strong centralised empire like the Mauryas, Nandas and Guptas, the mere thought of a mighty royal army sitting thousands of miles away scared them. Further, the ordeal of crossing those thousands of miles full of dense forests, wild animals, heat, hostile terrain, climate and the war-like hostile population motivated many legendary empire builders to find their way back home.
History of Bloodshed, Chaos, and Disorder
In the history of Bharatvarsha/Aryavarta, the Delhi region is associated with bloodshed, internal feuds, chaos, and a decline of values. Towards the end of Dwapar Yuga, a major battle — Mahabharata — was fought in Kurukshetra, a battleground near the Delhi region, in today’s Haryana. The battle was fought between the brothers Pandavas, the rulers of Indraprastha and Kauravas, the rulers of Hastinapur, both in the modern Delhi region. In Indian mythology and the discourse prevailing in the Sanatana spiritual and religious quarters, the Mahabharata battle is considered the most destructive battle of mankind’s history. It is believed that in that battle, brahmastra, a mythical weapon of mass destruction, was used. With the Mahabharata war, Kshatriyas are said to have vanished, Kali Yuga started, and the decline of mighty Sanatana Dharma and civilisation began. Acharya Osho Rajneesh, one of the most learned Indian spiritual masters, in one of his discourses said that after Mahabharata, India has declined in every respect i.e., economy, culture, war and strategy, and this downward spiral has been continuous.
Coming to recorded history, when Prithviraj Chauhan shifted his capital to Delhi, while presiding over as its ruler, he was defeated by Afghan invader Muhammad Ghori (1192-93). The Mamluk dynasty kings during the Sultanate period (1193- 1527) had their capital in Delhi. However, they could never have a stable reign of peace and prosperity. Raziya Sultana, the successor of Aibak and Iltutmish, was killed. Her successor was ousted by Balban, one of the main 40 Shamsi slaves (slaves of Balban). Balban’s successors were killed and ousted by the Khaljis, who, in turn, were replaced by Tughlaqs. Finally, the Afghan Lodhis occupied the Delhi throne, and they were routed and ousted by Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India. Notably, during the Sultanate rule, there was hardly a period of relative stability, peace, and prosperity. There were foreign invasions by Mongols, bloody internal intrigues, palace coups and murders, staunch resistance by the Hindu kings in the hinterland, farmers’ revolts in North India and massive revolts by the local rulers in Bengal. The central authority remained perpetually weak during the Sultanate period and over time, an array of regional kingdoms emerged powerful such as Mewar, Marwar, Malwa, Gujarat, Vijaynagar, Pandyas, Kakatiyas, Jaunpur etc.
Coming to the Mughals, it can be argued that they enjoyed a relative period of peace and stability until the time Agra was their capital city. However, after Shahjahan shifted the capital to Delhi in 1638, the Mughal decline started. For about seven years, Shahjahan remained a prisoner of the usurper king Aurangzeb and died a miserable and lonely death in the Agra fort. With Aurangzeb’s rise and his execution of Dara Shikoh, the liberal prince and the rightful heir, the semblance of tolerance for non-Muslims practised by some of the early Mughal rulers came to a tragic end, following which began an era of an extremely fanatic and bigoted state policy centred on hatred and animosity towards Hindus and Sikhs. As evident from history, Aurangzeb’s reign was marked by massive religious persecution of Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians (in a few cases). Temple demolition and forced conversions became the order of the day.
Economically, the empire was drained by the Mansabdars and their corrupt land revenue-cum-taxation practices. Long-drawn and unsustainable wars, mainly with Marathas, Sikhs and to some extent with Rajputs, also drained the Mughal empire of its resources. After Aurangzeb’s death, within 50 years, the Mughal empire was confined to the outskirts of Delhi. In the span of less than 50 years, there were six to seven incompetent kings ruling as puppets of the ambitious nobles. These ambitious nobles staged palace coups, killed the kings, and enthroned the new puppets. The puppet kings like Mohammad Shah Rangeela, had no charisma, strength and capability. They merely indulged in womanising and drinking. Ruled by such nincompoops, Delhi was open to plundering, murder and loot by foreign invaders like Nadir Shah, who is said to have killed 70,000 people in Delhi in three days (1739). Once again, the central authority collapsed and a range of local strongholds emerged such as Nawabs of Awadh, Marathas of Poona, Nizams of Hyderabad, Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan of Mysore, and the East India Company, emerging as the most powerful player.
Coming to the British, it can be observed that their kingdom and clout was intact and expanding, not only in India, but globally, until they ruled from Calcutta. They could even survive the bloody revolt of 1957. However, the British decline started after they shifted the capital from Calcutta to Delhi in 1912. In December 1911, the British emperor announced the shifting of the capital to Delhi. In 1912, during the capital shifting ceremony, Indian revolutionaries — Ras Bihari Bose and Madan Lal Dhingra — threw a bomb to kill the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge. He survived; however, his wife succumbed to the injuries. After 1912, the world order began to change with the onset of the decline of Pax-Britannica. By the beginning of the first world war, Germany and Japan had emerged as serious contenders. After the end of the first world war, the US and USSR had largely replaced the British as the superpowers.
In India, the British faced serious challenges and disruptions from armed revolutionaries, mass movements like the Non-Cooperation (1919), Civil Disobedience (1930), Quit India movement (1942) and armed forces rebellions like the naval mutiny and Netaji-led INA attack. Economically also, the British were finding it hard to wield the Indian empire, the jewel in the British crown. After World War II, the British Empire was liquidated within a span of 20 years.
Image and Memories in collective psychology
Having discussed the history of Delhi, I would like to reiterate that in the civilisational sub-conscious plane of all those Indians who nurture moorings in history and Sanatana spiritual essence, Delhi holds a certain image. Built and destroyed several times, this city revives unpleasant memories of historical blunders and moments that had the potential to alter India’s historical trajectory. Since the Mahabharata times, Delhi’s image is associated with internal feuds, deceit, palace intrigues, manipulation, chaos, conflict, and instability. It is seen as the facilitator of centrifugal tendencies, detrimental to a strong central empire.
Secondly, it was mostly ruled by foreign invaders, Islamic and the British; hence indigenous Indians anchored in Sanatana identity perceive it as a symbol of slavery, antithetical to Sanatana ethos and institutions. In the Islamic period i.e., during the Sultanate and Mughal rule, those individuals and institutions flourished which laid the foundation of modern-day Islamic radicalisation, polarisation, and Jihadist terrorism in South Asia. During Islamic rule, radical clerics like Sheikh Ahmed Sarhindi and Shah Waliullah advocated hatred against Hindus, Jizya, forced conversions and temple demolitions. Firuz Tughlaq, who burnt a Brahmin alive, and Mohammad Bin Tughlaq, under whose reign thousands of farmers were killed, ruled from Delhi. Aurangzeb, the last mighty Mughal emperor, and a poster boy of Islamic fanaticism, who executed Sikh gurus, destroyed temples like Kashi Vishwanath and converted people, ruled from Delhi. The Islamic radicalisation led to India’s partition and bloody communal riots. Today’s gravest internal security threat i.e., Islamic radicalisation and terrorism is perceived as a direct or indirect outcome of the events, institutions, ethos, and individuals that defined and shaped Islamic rule.
Under British rule, the Sanatana civilisation underwent further decline, deterioration, and marginalisation. In both these periods, there were massive revolts against the imperial authority of Delhi by religious groups, local kings, chieftains, monks, and landlords. In fact, the phrase “Dilli Durbar” became a symbol of imperial authority and oppression. After independence, India continued Delhi as the national capital. Along with that, we retained and strengthened the colonial values and essence in all the state institutions that we inherited from the British such as the judiciary, civil service, armed forces, academia, constitution, and our parliamentary democracy. Therefore, even today, Delhi does not evoke those sentiments, religious and cultural bonding, and spiritual moorings which a place like Banaras or Ujjain evokes. Delhi still appears like a remnant or a vestige of foreign powers and the politico-social culture they built.
Before I make this point, it is pertinent to narrate what an Aghori mystic from Rajasthan — Mangla Maharaj — once told me. Answering my questions pertaining to India’s much-touted ancient glory, subsequent decline, Islamic conversions, terrorism, anglicised and opportunistic Bhurasahab-like colonial bureaucracy, and the breed of leftist and liberal intellectuals, academics and journalists reviled for their alleged hatred for Santana traditions, he said with a mystic smile, “as long as you have Delhi as your capital, you will continue to witness the culture of dishonesty, scrupulousness, manipulation, hypocrisy, nepotism and inherent hatred for Sanatana values and institutions.” His statement led me into a long discussion with him but I do not intend to digress and elaborate upon that here.
However, the fact remains that Delhi was conquered, tortured, and plundered several times by foreign invaders. Having witnessed the horrors of massacres, rapes, and cultural genocide at the hands of the rapacious invading armies, the local population developed a strong sense of survival instincts. When survival instincts inform one’s behaviour, thoughts, attitudes and actions, there is a strong likelihood of the erosion of values, morals, and ethics. It is like an “apatdharma” i.e., actions deemed fit to protect oneself in adverse circumstances. In such a situation, the relationship between the rulers (foreign invaders) and their terrified subjects was not based on openness, transparency, accountability, trust and genuine love and loyalty towards the state or the kings. The subjects became experts in manipulation by lying, bribery, sycophancy, and opportunism. Over time, such ethos was likely to become mainstream and we inherited them post-1947. With such ethos dominant in society, the development of an establishment or to put it better, an ecosystem, constituted by a class of selfish politicians, opportunistic bureaucracy, intellectually dishonest and deracinated breed of academics-journos-intellectuals and an elitist judiciary, was the most natural outcome. Also, by default, such an establishment was bound to be a poor replica of their erstwhile foreign masters and loathful towards Sanatana values.
Lastly, in all my interactions with the spiritual leaders, masters, religious monks and organisations of Sanatana and the affiliated schools such as Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, I have found that they do not relate comfortably with Delhi. They are reminded of the execution of Guru Teg Bahadur, Banda Bairagi and their religious compatriots, temple destructions and forced conversions, and dejection and humiliation in several other ways. They do not find the essence of Dharma and ethics in Delhi’s socio-cultural and political culture shaped by the rule and legacies of the foreign invaders. Even after independence, Hindu monks protesting cow slaughter were killed and most recently, Baba Ramdev, a spiritual guru, was humiliated and his followers mercilessly beaten while protesting corruption. The reason I have brought up this point is that whether we like it or not, agree or not, the spiritual forces including the organisations and individuals have played the most crucial role in bringing revolutionary changes in society, be it the Bhakti movement, 1857 revolt, social and religious reforms, peasant revolts, freedom struggle, formation of the Congress, science and technology, education and the rise of Marathas, Vijayanagara empire, Mewar etc. A place that does not sit well with India’s essence i.e. its spiritual forces and mystics, may not be a great choice for the capital.
To conclude, I would like to raise a question —
Today, when India is inaugurating a new Parliament House, shouldn’t we be pondering over a more fundamental question of changing India’s capital and finding a centrally located place with robust roots in India’s Sanatana civilisational legacy and values, and devoid of bitter colonial hangovers? Also, a place like that will not be alien to Southern and Eastern India, which often gets coverage for anti-Hindi and anti-North views.
The author is a Cornell University graduate in public affairs, bachelors from St Stephen’s College, Delhi and has done his PhD on Jaish-e-Mohammad. He is a policy analyst specialising in counterterrorism, Indian foreign policy and Afghanistan-Pakistan geopolitics. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Comments
0 comment