THE DEATH OF ISLAMIC CITIES

By Kasper | May 23, 2017

The Death of Islamic Cities:

Comparing urban military violence during the French occupation of Egypt
and the British siege of Delhi.

The 18th and 19th centuries saw a resurgence of colonial imperialism amongst western European countries.
In some cases, empires were created along economic lines, and were borne from the need to secure the
international trade empires that these counties had spent centuries developing and had grown reliant on
for their way of life. In other cases, empire was means of self-defense, pre-emptively protecting their
interests by conquering both their real and perceived enemies. Then there were the social and political
projects of modernity, in which empire was viewed as a means of spreading European enlightenment-era
ideals across the world. These were not mutually exclusively as these early-modern period colonial
empires were conflagrations of competing desires for national security, economic and social prosperity and
expansionist projects all back up by through ideological rhetoric.

A key element of imperial expansion was the military occupation of cities as they were focal points of
power. New military technologies developed in this time period, such as artillery cannons and rapid-fire
rifles, transformed the means by which war was waged and allowing for greater escalation of violence
against not just soldiers, but cities and their civilians. This became particularly apparent when Colonial
empires such as those of Britain and France would come into conflict over the different cultural values and
social conventions of the spaces they sought dominion over. When the tensions became too much, they
would resort to extreme expressions of violence against the people and the city itself in order to subjugate
both.

Urbicide – the calculated urban destruction for political gain (Gregory et al, 2009) – was used during 1798
– 1801 French military occupation of Cairo and the 1857 British siege of Delhi as an essential part of their
strategy to control the population. I will begin by addressing the similarities between these two cities, which
were largely Muslim in both demographics and in urban form. Then, I shall examine the political motives
and narratives used by imperialist colonial powers in order to justify their conquest of these cities, which
will led into my third point of how this would come into conflict with the citizens themselves and ultimately
lead to outbreak of violence between the two groups. Finally, I shall discuss how the colonial reprisal
transformed the urban structure of both Cairo and Delhi.

‘Islamic’ Cities
Cairo and Delhi both have a long history of urban development. Many previous settlements have existed at
the sites these cities are now located. But for the sake of this paper, I shall concentrate on the settlements
upon which France and Great Britain asserted their power. Cairo and Delhi both share attributes commonly
associated with the ‘Islamic City’. This is to say that they were both founded by Islamic rulers who
designed the city in a way that was noticeably different from the Roman-Christian cities of Europe. As
stated by Gutpa in his paper Indomitable Cities, “Islamic Law lastingly defined the organization and
distribution of space and therefore had a direct influence on the city structure […] Division of the city into
small homogenous units and the subdivision of space into public, semi-private, and private space, which is
to be seen at every level, is in conformity with this very law system, which eventually defined the character
of the Islamic City.”(Gutpa, 2003)
 Figure 1: Environs Du Kaire, circa 1800

Cairo, or Al Qahira, was established as the royal capital of the Fatimid Dynasty in 969 AD. Its primary
purposes were religious and militaristic, with the aim of spreading Islam to nearby communities and
exerting authority through military conquests of surrounding regions (AlSayyad, 2011). As such a great
deal of emphasis was placed upon the city’s fortifications and its religious centers. Al Qahira was built
nearby the former capital of Fustat, an important trade town along the Nile River. The two cities became
deeply intertwined with one another, with Al Qahira as the center of political and religious life and Fustat as
focus of economic activity. After Saladin ousted the Fatimids and took control of Al Qahira and Fustat in
1174, he constructed a great wall around the two settlements, physically uniting them into the single entity
of Cairo (Ahmed & Kamel, 1996). He also commissioned a large citadel atop Mokattam hill near the center
of Cairo, which would persist as the political and military center of Cairo for centuries to come. Despite
changing hands many times over the course of the centuries that followed, the overall urban structure of
the city remained relatively consistent from Saladin’s urban reforms.

Delhi’s birth was rooted in the accession of the Mughal Empire. Construction began on Delhi – then called
Shahjahanabad – in 1637, under the direct of Shah Jahan. He sought to build an imperial capital that
would clearly express the power and grandeur of both Islam and the Mughal court. He carefully designed
the city with clear, geometric pattern that radiated out from the seat of the empire at the Red Fort, through
the symmetrical palaces and gardens, and towards the Friday Mosque along two main processional streets
and a host of canals (Mukheji, 2003). A great wall was constructed around the city to defend it from attacks
as well as to define its boundaries. As it was the seat of a Muslim empire, the city’s demographics were
overwhelmingly Muslim, with a Hindu minority This framework remained in place all the way through the
reign of the Mughal empire all the up until the siege of 1857.

There is a hierarchy of power that resonates in the urban structures of both Delhi and Cairo. As seen in
figure 1, Cairo was structured around three major edifices: the Mosque, the Citadel and the main
processional road. The al Azhar Mosque was the religious and physical core of the city where the public
would congregate for Friday prayer (Ahmed & Kamel, 1996). Other mosques existed throughout the city,
but the al Ahzar was the focal point from which Islam would radiate into the lives of the citizens. The
Citadel was the political and military center of Cairo(Stewart, 1999). Fortified under Saladin, the citadel
came to be surrounded by the palaces and gardens of the social elite (Ahmed & Kamel, 1996). Lastly,
there was the main processional road, which served as the spine around which social and economic
activity was organized in the form of the Bazaar.
 Figure 2: Plan of Delhi 1857-1858. (Taylor, 1860)

Shahjahanbad was structured around similar edifices. As the seat of the Mughal emperor, The Red Fort
was the center military and political power in the form of the Mughal court. The Friday Mosque was the
physical center and religious core of the city to which the citizens would congregate once a week (Gutpa,
1981). The central processional streets also make their appearance, as well as the Bazaars that surround
them and form the hub of economic and social activity. Additionally, both of these cities have a distinct
division between public and private life, where in public life is lived out in the processional streets, the
mosque and bazaar while the private sphere is contained within walled urban subdivisions (Malik, 2003).
These neighborhoods were highly defensible, and could be closed off from the streets in the event of a
plague, riots, or conquest.
What we see here is the recurrence of structures that make up the ‘Islamic city’. It is not to say that these
types of cities are particular to Islam, but rather that they share a series of characteristics that are heavily
influenced by Persian model of urbanism much in the same way that European cities followed a roman
model of urbanism (Gregory, 2015). Both of which were spread through imperial processes.
Characteristics of these cities include “a centrally located Friday mosque, the Bazaar around it with distinct
socioeconomic differentiations from center to periphery, a city wall and citadel, intra-urban quarters, and
blind alleys” (Ehlers & Krafft, 2003) A clear spatial hierarchy is evident in the city itself. But from the
perspective of the French and British, no such structure existed. Because they did not possess the grids of
European cities, Cairo and Delhi were viewed as chaotic spaces whose beauty was unable able to make
up for the lack of order (Bret, 1998; Gutpa, 2003).

Imperial Narratives
The reasons used to justify the conquest of Delhi and Cairo are equally important as the conquest itself, as
they are crucial to understanding the attitudes of the imperialistic colonials and the violence that they would
inflict on both the people and the cities.

At the end of the 19th century, the First French Empire was expanding across Europe under the command
of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. His main objective in this endeavor was to find a means of undermining
France’s historic rival of Great Britain. As a direct invasion of Britain was next to impossible, Napoleon
sought other, more indirect means of weakening the naval power. He eventually settled on the plan to
attacking its colonies in India and South East Asia, thereby undermining Britain’s trade empire (Cole,
2007). In order to accomplish this he needed to find a way to stage an invasion. Egypt became a target as
the British used the land bridge north of the Suez Gulf as a shortcut to India. In taking control of Egypt,
Napoleon would be able to take control of this link. Furthermore, the Suez Gulf could be staging point for a
future bid at wrenching control of the Red Sea and India from the British (Richmond, 1977).

Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt was swift and brutal. The Mamluks were woefully un-equipped and ill-
prepared to repel an invasion by one of Europe’s most powerful armies at the time, and their forces were
crushed in a bloodily spectacular fashion at the Battle of the Pyramids just outside of Cairo. The French
occupation of Cairo began on July 22th 1798, just over three weeks after first landing in Alexandria. Shortly
after his arrival into Egypt, Napoleon made a proclamation claiming to be an ally of the Egyptian people
and an enemy of the Mamuluk aristocracy who ruled Egypt under the Ottoman Empire.

“For too long this rabble of slaves bought in Georgia and Caucasia have tyrannized over the most beautiful
part of the world; but God, from whom all depends, has ordered that their empire shall cease. Peoples of
Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Answer that I have come
to restore your rights and punish the usurpers, and that, more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his
prophet and the Koran.” – Napoleon Bonaparte, July 2 1798 (Colla, 2003)

He attempted to dissuade the Egyptians of their fears that the French were there to undermine their
religion, while simultaneously declaring that he would install a republic not unlike the French Republic. This
is a clear example of how imperial projects can become intertwined with rationales of cultural
enlightenment and liberation. The Egyptians were wary of this, and scholar al-Jabarti wrote a scathing
criticism of this proclamation, denouncing it as pure invention (Jabartī , Bourrienne & Said, 1993).

Great Britain had a long history of trade with India, going as far back as the 17 th century,through the British
East India Company (B.E.I.C.). The Trade Company’s main purpose in India was in maintaining its trade
networks and ensuring the continual supply of Indian textiles and spices to the British Isles. It took on a
more active role in the affair of Indian politics during the later 18th century in order to maintain the integrity
of its trade, culminating in 1803 when they defeated the Marathas and seized control of much of the
continent. The Mughal emperor was installed as a puppet ruler, who was stripped of most of his properties
and power to the point that he held no authority outside of the walls of the Red Fort and was forced to live
on an allowance managed by the B.E.I.C. superficial display of power took place within, while the real
power was held by the British Resident Ministers (Gupta, 1981).

From this point onward, Delhi, and the rest of India, were considered territories under the rule of Great
Britain through the proxy of the British East India Trade Company. Few changes happened in the half-
century that followed, as the Company had little interest in maintaining the city itself or in the daily lives of
its citizens. Efforts were made regulate the infrastructural systems that the British Resident relied upon as
well, particularly the city walls (Mukheji, 2003). Side streets, avenues of lesser importance, gardens,
mosques, and even the palace itself were left neglected. Local-run newspapers complained about the
neglect, but these fell on deaf ears (Gupta, 1981). The British Resident in Delhi viewed themselves as
arbitrators tasked with keeping the balance between communities (Gupta, 1981).

Overall, the British maintained a distant attitude in all areas that did not concern profit. They failed to
engage with the Indian social and political systems in any way that did not reflect their goals of resource
extraction and empire trade. They relied largely on the use of militias composed of locale soldiers, called
Sepoys, to protect their interests. So secure were the British in their control of Delhi and the Emperor that
they moved the majority of the troops out from the city to a Cantonment on the Delhi Ridge on the opposite
side of the river, while leaving their main powder magazine inside the city walls (Gupta, 1971). Ultimately,
the British Resident and the East India Company downplayed social and religious undercurrents churning
against them, and failed to address them.

Revolt and Reprisal

The state of affairs in Delhi lasted until 1857. The heightened tensions between the British and the Indians
blew up when a militia in Meerut mutinied against the British Officers upon discovering that their rifle
cartridges used grease derived from beef tallow (Srivastava, 1997). The fires of revolution quickly spread
to Delhi, where the Emperor gave his support of the revolution. Accounts vary on whether this was
reluctant or willing action on his part (Gupta, 2003; Mukheji, 2003; Saha, 2008). In either case, this
symbolic gesture became a rallying cry against British occupation, with Delhi effectively becoming the focal
point of the revolution. The resulting conflict has many names, such as the First Indian War of
Independence, the Indian Uprising, the Indian Revolution and the Indian Mutiny. The last of these terms
was the one the British used to describe the rebellion, which is very indicative of their perspective on the
matter. To the Indian population, this was an act of rebellion against the British rule. To the British, this was
a threat against their empire.

The uprising threatened to undermine the British colonial empire in the southeast Asia, as well as unravel
the trade network that British had spent centuries developing. The act of the rebellion had humiliated the
British Empire (Saha, 2008). To allow the Indian people to overthrow British rule would deal a blow to the
nation’s empire and to its perceived status among other European powers (Carter & Bates, 2010). Even
though the Mughal Emperor officially ruled the territory, the British considered the uprising to be an act of
treason against the British Crown rather than liberation (Gupta, 1971). Therefore, its participants were not
revolutionaries, but traitors. This rhetoric was made clear in how the British newspapers described the
revolution as a mutiny. Also of note is that the rebellion was handled by the British Military, rather than the
BEIC, which further highlights how this had become a matter of imperial control rather than economic
insurance.

Delhi’s significance in the rebellion was two fold: Not only was it the historical capital of the Mughal Empire,
it was also the focal point of the rebellion. A liberated Delhi represented a liberated India (Saha, 2008), and
the fact that it was one of the first cities to overthrow the British Resident set the tone for much of the
rebellion as it spread through northern India. Allowing this to persist would further undermine the imperial
project, and so the British made the conquest of Delhi a top priority in their military strategy.
 Figure 3: Plan of the final attack on Delhi (1880)

The siege of Delhi began on July 1st, 1857, as British forces seized control of the Delhi ridge, and
bombarded the city with heavy artillery(Saha, 2008). On September 14th, the British broke through the
Kashmiri gate with the use of explosive charges. As seen in figure three, the British forces used the main
processional routes in order to stage their final assault on the city itself. But even so, it took several days of
fighting on the street for the British forces to take control of Delhi. The battle for the city ended on the
20th of September. The time that followed after came to be known as the British Terror, as British soldiers
enacted a bloody revenge against the people of Delhi for having withstood the siege for so long (Gutpa,
1993). The sheer brutality of the violence stunned the Indian inhabitants. A British soldier described one of
doubtlessly many scenes that occurred in Delhi on that day:

“It was literally murder… I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately, but one as I witnessed
yesterday pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands
and sons butchered, were most painful… heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey man is
brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man’s heart I think who can look on with
indifference” – Edward Vibart (Saha, 2008)

No distinction was made between rebels and supporters as the British soldiers sacked the city. The
Emperor’s sons were killed on the streets alongside the rest of the nobility who had not yet fled the city.
The Emperor was himself captured, and whatever veneer of perceived sovereignty he had left was
stripped away when he was put on trial for, of all things, treason against the British Crown. He was found
guilty, blinded, and exiled to Burma where he died some years later (Saha, 2008).

The Red Fort was seized and converted into a barracks for the soldiers while the rest of the city was
effectively transformed into a military encampment. Much of the city was burnt down or destroyed through
artillery and dynamite during the British Terror. The survivors fled the city initially for fear of their own lives,
while those who stayed behind were eventually forced out as part of a government mandate to empty the
city of all of its inhabitants. The army confiscated and restructured properties belonging to those who
supported the rebellion (Hosagrahar, 2001). In the early phases of revolution, a narrative had emerged of
the ‘traitorous muslim’ and the ‘loyal hindu’(Saha, 2008), which originated from reports indicating that the
rebels at Meerut were Muslim. This was compounded with the fact that much of the Rebel’s support base
was amongst the Muslim middle and upper classes, which sought to be rid of the oversight of the British
Resident. As a result it was mostly the properties owned by Muslims that were targeted for confiscation
and destruction.

In Cairo, animosity between the Cairens and the French occupiers existed from the beginning of the
occupation. While some casual, amicable relations had been established between the Cairens and their
French occupiers, there was much distrust between them. This tension is evidenced in the writings of
Vivant Denon and al-Jabarti. Denon’s Voyage dans la basse et la haute Égypte is without a doubt a war
journal, and though he sincerely believed that they were on mission of liberation, he found the Egyptians to
be surly towards their supposed liberators (Colla, 2003). His thoughts echo those of the French Soldiers,
who cared little for Egypt or its people. Al-Jabarti was a native of Cairo, and his record of the occupation
gives voice to the sentiments of the people of Cairo towards their occupiers. The French administrative
system and their republican government intrigued him, while also he was repulsed by their blatant
disregard for Islamic tradition and mocked them for their half-hearted attempts at appealing the masses of
Egypt. (Jabartī, Bourrienne & Said, 1993; Colla, 2003)
Upon arriving in Cairo, the French established their main barracks in the Citadel, as well as several military
encampments around the city. The French sought to create a republic as they “viewed the Arabic-speaking
urban middle classes as the potential backbone of a French Republic”(Richmond, 1977). The majority of
the middle class was Muslim clergy, who were well educated in seminaries and held immense judicial,
religious, and moral authority (Bret, 1998). Recognizing the importance of this social class, Napoleon
appointed a council of nine to ten Divan, each of whom were considered to be the foremost authorities
pertaining to judicial, theological, and religious matters(Richmond, 1977). However, the Divan was just a
formality. The true power was with the military, and more specifically, in General Dupuy, who had been
appointed the military governor of Cairo shortly after its conquest (Cole, 2007).

An administrative commission was instituted with the task of making the city easier to control. The
commission immediately set about mapping the streets of Cairo, recording the number of buildings, their
location, and the number of people who lived there and their names (Bret, 1998; Raymond, 2000). To the
French, this was a matter of being able to control the streets and the people therein. To the Cairens, this
was a violation of their private spheres and lives.

The final instigation came on the 20th of October, 1798, when it was announced that a three-tiered tax
system based on property was to be established (Richmond, 1977) (Bret, 1998). This was in direct
contrasts to Islamic-based laws, which only imposed such taxes on slaves. The inhabitants viewed these
taxes as a “humiliation of the highest order” (Jabartī, Bourrienne & Said, 1993) and immediately expressed
their dissatisfaction by rallying against the ‘infidel occupiers’ with the refrain “may God grant victory to
Islam/Muslims” (Jabartī, Bourrienne & Said, 1993). By the next morning a sizable crowd of armed
protestors had gathered in the main square with the intention of driving the French out.

General Dupuy attempted to pacify the crowed, but was pulled from his horse and killed which encouraged
further insurrection against the French (Cole, 2007). The rebel Cairens raided the offices of the
Administrative Commission, stealing their tools and attempting to destroy as much of their registry as
possible (Raymond, 2000). The French retaliation was swift, and the rebels were quickly confined to the
Azhar mosque where they were subjected to artillery fire from the Citadel (Richmond, 1977).

“The firing from the Citadel and dump continued in volleys until the very foundations shook. Some of the
cannon balls destroyed the walls of houses and others fell into some of the palaces” – Al-Jabarti (Jabartī,
Bourrienne & Said, 1993)
The entire insurrection was over within 36 hours(Richmond, 1977). The aftermath saw the condemnation
and execution of the sheiks of the Azhar mosque – who held membership within the Divan – and others
who had risen up in arms against the French. The population was also disarmed “with little consideration
for Muslim customs or feelings” while the mosque was vandalized and looted by French soldiers (Jabartī,
Bourrienne & Said, 1993). The Azhar mosque was one of the most important seminaries in all of Egypt,
and many of the rebels were students at this institution (Richmond, 1977). The looting that occurred was
not only seen as a sacrilege, but as disrespect for the educational institutions of Egypt. The Divan was
abolished, only to be re-established two months later with new members as many of the previous members
had participated in the revolt (Bret, 1998). The captured rebels were privately executed, and no spectacle
was made of their deaths. For the French, putting down this revolt was a matter of protecting their interests
in Egypt. Not being able to control the capital of Egypt would be detrimental to their greater schemes of
undermining British holdings in India.

The second revolt began in March of 1800, and took place on a much larger scale than the first one.
Shortly after the French conquered Egypt, the Ottomans had declared war on France, and formed a
military alliance with Great Britain in order to drive out the French (Cole, 2007). Napoleon recognized that
he would soon be cut off from France by the British military, and so he secretly fled sometime in the late
August of 1799, leaving the bereft General Kléber in charge. When the forces of the Ottoman Empire
arrived in Egypt, Kléber and most of the French forces left Cairo in order to confront them head on. The
Cairens took advantage of their occupier’s absence to retake much of the city of Cairo. While they were
unable to assault the fortified citadel, they managed to drive the French out from the northeastern sections
of the city and its nearby town of Bulaq (Cole, 2007).

However, this was to be short lived. After the French armies had defeated the Ottomans, they immediately
returned to Cairo to re-assert their control over the city, but not before venting their anger on Bulaq. This
city was utterly ravaged by French soldiers, and was left a smoking ruin. (Gregory, 2015) The French
marched on Cairo, and once again bombarded the rebel-controlled sections of the city from the Citadel.
When the rebels refused to surrender, the French set off bombs and fires across the city (Cole, 2007).
Entire sections of the city were destroyed, and much of the Azbakiya district was razed to ground. The
revolution ended a month later with the deaths of most of the rebel forces. Putting down this revolt was one
of the final great military actions that would be undertaken during the occupation of Cairo. The French
occupation of Egypt was already starting to come apart at this point. It had become abundantly clear that
Napoleon’s plan of using Egypt as a staging ground for an attack on Britain’s colonial holdings had become
unfeasible. Despite the violence inflicted against the Cairens, this reprisal was more of an act of
desperation by the French Empire as their occupation of Egypt started to unravel.
In both cases, imperial powers used superior military technologies such as cannon artillery proved to
suppressing the native citizens of the occupied cities. Both the French and British armies incorporated the
urban layout of the cities in the French and British strategies, and used the higher ground that had been
allotted to the citadels and palaces of the ruling class to bombard the cities. The enclosed spaces of the
private neighborhoods were used to restrict the rebel’s movements, forcing them into chokepoints where
they were massacred by a frighteningly effective combination of cavalry and artillery. However, these same
spaces had been used to impede the movement of imperial forces, and prevented the policing gaze from
penetrating into the private lives of the inhabitants.

Restructuring the City

The revolts were tragically successful in revealing to the French and British the failings of their control over
their colonized cities. However, instead of addressing why the natives revolted in the first place, they
choose to instead focus their efforts on remaking the city into a space of control.

As mentioned earlier, the French began their occupation of Cairo by mapping out the city and cataloguing
its inhabitants. In fact, relatively little construction was actually done during the course of the occupation,
and that which did occur was for increased security and military control of the city (Stewart, 1999). Military
fortifications were built across Cairo, and the city effectively became a military base.

French efforts to control the city structure heightened after the first revolt. Napoleon issued orders to tear
down the wooden and stone gates that separated the private neighborhoods from the public in order to
prevent them from being shut in the event of a riot (Richmond, 1977). Doing so would make it more difficult
for the Cairens to barricade themselves from French soldiers in the event of another revolution (Jabartī,
Bourrienne & Said, 1993). This tore down the traditional barriers between public and private space, and
was construed by the Cairens as an invasion of their privacy and a disregard of the traditional plan of the
city.

The French also carried out other demolitions for the purposes of ordering the city to their whims, which
were recorded in great detail by Al-Jabarti. Barricades were built up around the city, and mosques were
demolished to make room for more military outposts throughout the city (Jabartī, Bourrienne & Said, 1993).
Streets were widened by cutting down the date trees that lined them, as wider street were easier for
French soldiers to patrol on horsebacks. It would make them more amenable to wheeled cannons and
cavalry charges in the event of another revolt (Richmond, 1977). These decisions were met with
widespread unrest, and diminished the sense of security for the people of Cairo.
Following the second revolt, the Azbakiya neighborhood was left in shambles as a testament to the military
power of the French armies. This, along with the decisions listed above, served as a potent political symbol
that demonstrated the dominance of French colonial power over the people through their domination of
urban space. Plans were also made to open up the city even further by leveling its neighborhoods to create
wide boulevards and avenues, as well as tearing down the walls that separated the various neighborhoods
of Cairo (Cole, 2007; Stewart, 1999). However, these plans did not come to fruition under the occupation,
as the French were driven from Cairo before they could be implemented.

Similar processes were undertaken in Delhi following its re-conquest, though they were far more drastic
than those that occurred in Cairo. Once the dust had settled, there was debate as to whether or not the city
should be kept, or destroyed all together as a final punishment for the uprising. The political secretary of
India eventually concluded that: “The political objects to be gained by destroying the palace will be gained
by occupying it.”(Saha, 2008) However, this city was not restored, but stripped of its political power as
punishment for the rebellion and allowed to survive a mere shade of its former glory (Gupta, 1987).

In the eyes of military officials, the city could not be left as it was, as the labyrinthine side streets and
walled neighborhoods made it difficult to secure. The intricate geometries of Delhi that had lasted since
Shah Jahan had first built the city were disregarded, desecrated, and destroyed for the purpose of
ensuring military control and surveillance. Nearly a third of Delhi’s urban landscape was destroyed in the
aftermath of the revolution(Gupta, 2003). Much of the destruction resulted from the razing of the mansions
and homes of those who had rebelled against the British. However, there was no clear registry of who was
and was not a rebel(Saha, 2008). Muslims were particularly targeted for their role in the uprising, as much
of the rebel’s support base had been amongst the Muslim Middle and upper classes (Srivastava, 1997).
The walled neighborhoods and mansions (Haveli) were confiscated by the British to be restructured and
sold off to those who had been deemed loyal to the British crown (Hosagrahar, 2001).

The second wave of destruction came in as the military forces occupied the Red Fort. It had been decided
that Delhi would be better defended and controlled from within the walls of the city, and so the seat of the
former Mughal empire was transformed it into a military base. Most of the palaces, gardens, and mosques
of the nobility that surrounded the Palace were destroyed, as an area of 500 yards surrounding the palace
was cleared and converted into a shooting range(Gupta, 1971; Saha, 2008). This also served the purpose
of creating a corridor of fire should the people of Delhi attempt to seek retribution for the violence
perpetrated against them. The destruction irrevocably altered the relationship between the Red Fort and
the rest of Delhi, as described here:
“The fort and the city, which had been functionally, spatially and visually integrated, had all of these
connections severed. The gardens and pavillions used by the people around the foot of the Fort were
replaced by a stretch of open land that placed the Fort almost on an island.” (Mukheji, 2003)

Great clearings of land occurred throughout the rest of the city. Canals were filled in, and bazaars were
leveled in order to widen streets to facilitate the passage of soldiers on horseback and police officer
(Mukheji, 2003). Just as was done in Cairo, the gates of the enclosed neighborhoods were demolished so
that the citizens could not seal themselves off from the rest of the city. The internal structures of domestic
life were disintegrated as the city itself was fragmented into smaller elements that were easier to control
and survey (Hosagrahar, 2001).

It was only after these changes had taken place that the citizens were allowed to re-enter the city, and
even then there were strict limitations.(Saha, 2008) In January 1858, only Hindus who had ‘proven’
themselves to be British supporters were allowed to re-enter the ruined city. When the Muslim majority was
allowed back in a year later, they found themselves devoid of homes, wealth, or any other shred of their
former lives. Even though the city was not destroyed, the devastation wrought upon it transformed Delhi
into a city that was unrecognizable even to its own inhabitants.

Concluding Remarks
Ultimately, we see similar policies of urbicide occurred in Delhi and Cairo. Both cities were designed as
Islamic imperial capitals intended to put their power and that of Islam on display for the masses. The cities
were highly defensible both physically and internally, as their social hierarchies were enforced through the
separation of private and social spheres. The intricate geometries of these cities made them dynamic in
ways that the colonial powers did not fully comprehend, where the built environment reflected traditional
cultural frameworks.

In Cairo, the object of urban violence wasn’t so much the total destruction of the city as it was undermining
its traditional social components in favor of military fortifications. The planned ‘westernization’ of the city
was equally a military project as it was an ideological project intended to remake Egypt into a simulacrum
of the French Republic. The destruction wrought in response to the second rebellion was devoid of such
pretenses, though at that point in the occupation France lacked the resources or will to continue a policy of
urbicide against Cairo.

Delhi, on the other hand, was an economic endeavor, wherein the British Resident ministers’ lack of
interest in all affairs apart from ensuring the continuation of the trade route. When the people of India rose
up, the British retribution was so bloody that it destroyed Delhi as an imperial city. In both cases, the
indifferent ignorance of the colonizing imperial power clashed with the projects clashed with the natives,
who rose up against them only to be cut down in a violent reprisal.

The French occupation of Cairo marked the beginning of a series of tumultuous transformations.
Muhammed Ali took control of Cairo shortly after the European forces left, and after massacring the
Mamluks his power quickly spread through all of Egypt. He was a francophile leader who sought to
modernize Egypt as much has he could. He and his son Ismail continued and re-initiated many of the
processes and projects that the French has set in motion.

The siege of Delhi was a turning point for the Indian Uprising. Soon afterwards, the rest of India fell under
British rule. The British Raj was instituted, thereby bringing an end to the Mughal Empire throughout India.
While tensions between Delhi’s Muslim and Hindu class did exist prior to the 1857 Rebellion, they were
aggravated by the British favoritism of the Hindus in its aftermath. Delhi was devolved from a capital to a
second-class city. It was eventually restored as New Delhi at the turn of the 20 th century, but the impact of
colonialism and the restructuring of the city that followed defined its future. Delhi forever lost its Islamic city
structure.

Artillery cannons and administrative clout proved to be an effective means on not merely asserting control
over the population, but also over the structure of the city itself. Immediately following the reprisals, the
colonial empires set to work on making the spaces easier to control by dismantling the old urban
structures, and by extension attempting to unravel the traditional social and cultural frameworks. This
gesture was symbolic as well, as in exerting their power over the city itself, making it known to them and
destroying the division between public and private space, the imperial powers of France and Britain made
their presence and authority known on every level of the native citizens life. The restructuring of the urban
landscape through violent, military means had a profound impact on the social dynamics of these cities,
which are still felt centuries later.

Bibliography

Ahmed, H., & Kamel, B. (1996). Cairo: three cities, three periods, three maidans. Built Environment (1978-
), 22(2), 104–123. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23288985
AlSayyad, N. (2011). Cairo: Histories of a city (pp. 171-198). Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.

Bret, P. (1998). L’É gypte au temps de l’expédition de Bonaparte. Paris: Hachette littératures.

Carter, M., & Bates, C. (2010). Empire and locality: a global dimension to the 1857 Indian Uprising. Journal
of Global History, 5(01), 51. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022809990337

Cole, J.R. (2007). Napoleon’s Egypt. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Colla, E. H. (2003). “Non, non! Si, si!”: Commemorating the French Occupation of Egypt (1798-
1801). Mln, 118(4), 1043–1069. http://doi.org/10.1353/mln.2003.0071

Ehlers, E. (Bonn), & Krafft, T. (Marburg). (2003). Islamic Cities in India? – Theoretical Concepts and the
case of Shâhjahânâbâd/Old Delhi. In E. (Bonn) Ehlers & T. (Marburg) Krafft (Eds.), Shâhjahânâbâd/Old
Delhi: Tradition and Colonial Change (2nd ed., p. 134). Stuttgart: Manohar.

Gregory, D. (2015). Cairo and Modernity. Presentation, UBC Geography Building.

Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (Eds.). (2009). The Dictionary of Human
Geography (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Gupta, N. (1971). Military Security and Urban Development: A Case Study of Delhi 1857–1912. Modern
Asian Studies, 5(01), 61. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X00002857

Gupta, N. (1981). Delhi between two empires, 1803-1931. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Gupta, N. (2003). The Indomitable City. In E. (Bonn) Ehlers & T. (Marburg) Krafft
(Eds.), Shâhjahânâbâd/Old Delhi: Tradition and Colonial Change (2nd ed., p. 134). Stuttgart: Manohar.

Hosagrahar, J. (2001). Mansions to Margins: Modernity and the Domestic Landscapes of Historic Delhi,
1847-1910. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 60(1), 26–45.

Jabartī , ʻ., Bourrienne, L., & Said, E. (1993). Napoleon in Egypt. Princeton: M. Wiener.
Malik, J. (2003). Islamic Institutions and Infrastructure in Shâhjahânâbad. In E. (Bonn) Ehlers & T.
(Marburg) Krafft (Eds.), Shâhjahânâbâd/Old Delhi: Tradition and Colonial Change (2nd ed.). New Dehli:
Manohar.

Mukheji, A. S. (2003). The Changing Perception of Space. In E. (Bonn) Ehlers & T. (Marburg) Krafft
(Eds.), S̲h̲âhjahânâbâd, old Delhi : tradition and colonial change (2nd ed., p. 134). New Dehli: Manohar.

Pritchett, F. delhi1857. Columbia.edu. Retrieved 21 November 2015, from

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00maplinks/colonial/delhi1857/delhi1857.html

Raymond, A. (2000). Cairo. (W. Wood, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Richmond, J. C. B. (1977). Egypt 1798-1942 : her advance towards a modern identity. New York: Columbia
Univeristy Press.

Saha, P. (2008). 1857 Revolt: British Response. Kolkata: Biswabiksha.

Srivastava, M. (1997). Architecture and Development as Instruments for Political Control and
Marginalization in Lucknow, India. Massachusetts Institure of Technology.

Stewart, D. J. (1999). Changing Cairo: the political economy of urban form. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 23(1), 103–127. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00182