<b>Bibek Debroy:</b> 1857 and all that

I wonder how many people remember Hyde Clarke. He was a railway economist and editor of Railway Times. The evolution of railways in India had several disparate roots and the Hyde Clarke idea was one such. He published a monograph in 1857 in London, titled, "Colonization, Defence and Railways in Our Indian Empire". In the appendix to the monograph, he reproduced a letter he had written on July 7, 1857 to The Times, titled, "Railways and Indian Revolts". To quote, "The late disastrous events in India have produced a very powerful effect on the Indian Railway department, and the authorities are pledged to the development of the railway system. Had the East Indian Railway been complete from Calcutta to Delhi, as it ought to have been, instead of halting halfway, the late disastrous events at Meerut and Delhi would never have occurred, or within 20 hours troops would have been conveyed there, whereas it will now take about eighty days to March. Had the Northern Bengal Railway been complete, fresh English battalions could have been poured down from Darjeeling to Calcutta and the Valley of the Ganges; and had the Shimla Railway been complete, the Commander-in-Chief would, in six hours, have proceeded with his staff and European forces from Shimla and Soobathoo (Subathu) to Delhi. Now, a fortnight, at least, will be spent in concentrating the requisite forces. It is expected that the salutary example of these comparisons will lead to the immediate guarantee of the Northern Bengal Railway, the Simla Railway, and other lines. The electric telegraph communication has been already productive of the most beneficial influence, in giving increased efficiency to military movements and the energetic action of the government."

The year 1857 caught the British unawares and there was criticism that had railway construction proceeded according to schedule, British defence and security interests could have been ensured more satisfactorily. Thus, 1857 altered the perspective in more ways than one. With the shift from the East India Company, through the Government of India Act, 1858, there was a questioning of the nature and form of British rule, such as in the deliberations of the 1858 Parliamentary Commission on "Colonization and Settlement of India". I don't want to go off on a tangent. But the 1860 Societies Registration Act and the 1867 Press and Registration of Books Act were both attempts to provide vents that fell short of violence. The Hyde Clarke idea was partly one of governing the country from hill stations like Darjeeling and Shimla, "English towns" and away from mainstream India. This explains the notion of adding branch lines to trunk lines and connecting hill stations like Darjeeling, the Nilgiris, Ooty and Shima. The Indian Branch Railway Company was formed in 1862 to specifically construct branch and feeder lines. That shock also explains the focus on recruiting Eurasians at subordinate levels of the railway bureaucracy.

The trunk lines had enhanced the importance of the Madras, Calcutta and Bombay Presidencies. As more railway companies were formed, there were new lines, weaving together Sindh and Multan to Punjab, Delhi to Amritsar and in the extreme south, Negapatnam to Trichinopoly and Madura and Tuticorin. In the interim, 1857 also adversely affected railway construction because of the dislocation. When construction revived, the conscious racial segregation became manifest in several ways. The British segregated themselves, not only in cantonments, but also in railway colonies and hill stations. Urban spaces, such as civil lines, were designed with this objective in mind. Lord Canning had succeeded Lord Dalhousie as Governor General in 1856 and he consciously focused on railway architecture, to make stations defensible against attacks, with ready conversion into army fortifications, and as temporary housing at times of emergencies. The railway station in Lucknow is a good example of this. With a line built in 1862, "the railway station was located in a vast open garden called the Charbagh, which was contiguous to the cantonment". The site was thought to be "commercially central and strategically good, with the Cantonments in its rear." This quote is from a book authored by Veena Talwar Oldenburg, called The Making of Colonial Lucknow, 1836-1877. "The rebellion had prompted the official decision to convert all railway stations in British India into military posts. This entailed considerable expenditure to redesign and fortify existing non-military railway stations. The Lucknow railway station was conceived at the right historical moment to fulfil the decision admirably well. It included a fort, arsenal and barracks, and extra accommodation for the evacuation of Christians in the event of another outbreak in the city." Since the military function became primary, the railway station became a restricted area and only passengers were allowed on platforms. This caused considerable discontent. I think there is fascinating material for someone to write a book on the architecture of railway stations constructed then, not just Lucknow.

On that restricted access to platforms and stations, a newspaper of the time complained, "At some stations it is customary to prevent travellers from approaching too near [the station] and only when tickets are being distributed are they allowed to go near the station." The history of railways in India is about such stuff too, not just the guarantee system.

The writer is a member of the National Institution for Transforming India Aayog. The views are personal