Discard Delhi, India’s capital should be in the South

Many of us have visited South-East Asia and countries there like Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore and Indonesia. One of the things that strikes one immediately is the strong connection with India that these places have, what with the ‘Suvarnabhoomi’ airport in Bangkok, the Angkor Vat temple complex in Cambodia, Bali island in Indonesia, where Hinduism is practiced openly and statues of Rama abound, not to mention Indonesia’s ‘Garuda’ airlines and, of course, the name Singapore, which is derived from ‘Simhapuram’. All this denotes Indian (more precisely, South Indian) influences in these parts.

Yet most of this is not taught in Indian history classes to students in schools and colleges, where lessons are centred on Delhi and North India. Our history in school and college is kept focused on the invaders who raided these parts, so much so that students have become convinced that there is not much more to Indian history than the continuous episodes of these invasions by outsiders. In fact, Indian history as taught has become centred on empires that ruled from Delhi (such as the Mughals) to the exclusion of other empires that held sway over large parts of India from other parts of the country, such as the Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas and the Vijayanagara Empire, or the Cholas, among others.

First-time visitors to South-East Asia today thus get very pleasantly surprised when they come across the deep Indian connect in these countries and realise that kingdoms based in South India had made deep inroads there. Yet, this is not part of the national consciousness, primarily because history as taught in India is focused on Delhi.

Delhi, once known as Indraprastha, came into prominence during the Mahabharata. In the medieval ages, when the Delhi Sultanate was established, Delhi became its capital. This was because the invaders who set up the Sultanate had come in from the North-West. The Mughals who came thereafter continued with Delhi as the capital and ruled from here, only alternating with Agra, a city close by.

In the modern era, Delhi was re-established as the capital of India in 1911. The British were ruling from Kolkata (Calcutta) ever since they rose to power in India, till continual unrest there (related to the partition of Bengal in 1905) and revolutionary activities forced them to move to Delhi. The British chose Delhi because they averred that this place, as capital, would have a close connect with people across a large part of India.

It was only once, in medieval India, that the capital was shifted far off from Delhi to the Deccan: this was in the time of Mohammed bin Tughlak, when the capital was moved to Deogiri, renamed as Daulatabad. This is in the proximity of present-day Aurangabad, which was only weeks ago renamed as Shambhajinagar. The idea was good, but Deogiri/Daulatabad failed to last as the capital because Tughlak’s move was sudden and made without virtually any planning. Ultimately, the capital had to be moved back, and Tughlak gained his reputation as a maverick.

The marauders who entered India from the North-West chose Delhi as the capital because it lay on the route of invasion. With Delhi as capital, the ruler could firmly focus on dealing effectively with the next invader. But times have changed, and technology has developed. An invasion of India, if anyone were to attempt that today, can be prevented from anywhere in modern India, and not just from Delhi. The British, in fact, came into India in the 17th century through Surat on the West coast, and then spread all across. In this nuclear age, any place in India is accessible from any other place. So, the accessibility of the capital is not an issue in deciding where India’s capital should be. Remember that the British chose Calcutta as the capital to start with because the East India Company’s business interests lay there. They moved away from there to Delhi under the British crown for the reasons explained above. Thus came up ‘New Delhi’ as we know it today, the foundation stone for which was laid by King George V in 1911 and which was inaugurated as the new capital of India only in 1931, just 16 years before Independence.

There is now a case for moving the capital away from Delhi. This is based on, among other reasons, the fact that the city has become an urban jungle. Delhi today extends, for practical purposes, from Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh, on one hand, to Gurgaon in Haryana, on the other, overstretching its infrastructure. Locals who own property might think that Delhi is a great place, but for the average resident, the city is almost unliveable. Many think therefore that the time has now come to move the capital away from Delhi. Where to, is the issue.

Given that in our history many empires ruled from South India, locating the new capital there would bring in a new perspective. It must be remembered that moving the nation’s capital will not mean only a new physical location, but also new influences. A new capital in South India would not only lead to more prominence to the region but could actually refashion the Indian Republic and the values it represents. This could also lead to a rewriting of Indian history in a way that correctly emphasises the historical and present-day reality and de-focus from matters that lead to religious conflicts.

But the million-dollar question is, where in South India should the capital be? Overcrowded cities are best avoided, because it would lead to a situation like Delhi. A smaller city with a moderate population and reasonably good weather could be chosen – with headroom for expansion. A place like Mysuru could be the choice, or a greenfield site on the road from Bengaluru to the Andhra border could be chosen to take advantage of the infrastructure. Hampi was the capital of the Vijayanagara Empire. In those days, people walked down to the Tirupati temple for pilgrimage, covering the distance of over 400 km. A suitable spot on this path could become the capital. Actually, there are many such choices across South India. It would be wise not to put the cart before the horse, perhaps, and instead look at the big picture of the idea of the capital being in the South.

(The writer is a senior journalist and author)