"Whoever has built a new city in Delhi has always lost it: the Pandava brethren, Prithviraj Chauhan, Feroz Shah Tughluk, Shah Jehan ... They all built new cities and they all lost them. We were no exception” - says the last living descendant of the Mughals to William Dalrymple, author of "City of Djinns". After multiple recommendations, I finally got around to reading this and boy oh boy, isn't this book a trip ! Even though I wouldn't give this a perfect 5 on 5 rating, I do highly recommend it, especially if like me, you revel in the history & don't mind a trip down nostalgia lane.
I have always loved cities. Maybe because I spent the formative years of my life in the quintessential "old part" of Pune or maybe because like millions of others, I feel at home despite the chaos, the noise & the crowds. So naturally, the premise of "City of Djinns" - a Scottish historian spending a year in Delhi chronicling its history - was immensely seductive and I dove into the book with high expectations.
Its a good book nay a great one if you are looking to understand the history of Delhi from the 12th century AD to about the 1900s. Dalrymple paints a vivid picture of the many transformations - both literal and cultural - that the city of Delhi has gone through. Instead of only talking about the Kings and their wars and who conquered who, the main focus here is on the cultural nuances, artistic scene and speculation about how the life of everyday Delhi-ite would have changed. The depiction of the Mughal Delhi is the most vivid one. Dalrymple talks a great deal about the East India officials who lived in Delhi from the 1800s, the sharp racist turn post the 1857 mutiny and the sad but true fate of Anglo Indians who faced closed doors from both India and UK. Chapters about Delhi eunuchs and about Sufi saints are riveting.
So then, what's my beef with the book ? IMO, it doesn't paint a "whole" picture - which is perfectly fine - but still claims to do so - and that is not ok. The pre 12th century Delhi history is literally glossed over in 20 pages, no mention of the role Delhi played in the Indian Freedom struggle and apart from talking about the architectural features of the Lutyens Delhi, the book doesn't talk about Delhi's importance in economy of North India. All of this is probably fine and I shouldn't complain, but what ticked me off most was the coverage of the partition. Don't get me wrong, it paints a very good picture of what the migrating Sikh, Muslim and Hindu had to go through because of the partition and it talks in great detail about how in few weeks, the demographic of Delhi was changed forever and how the "Old Delhi" lost part of its soul. But it bucketizes people per their religion and stops there. It doesn't mention the common middle class man - who whatever his religion was, was also affected deeply. Based on what I have read about the partition (which I admit, isn't a lot), the fate of the common man, who previously wouldn't necessarily identify his religious bucket strongly faced battles that he didn't want. Although nothing compared to the horrors the migrating people endured, this change in everyday, left a mark on the post-partition Indian psyche.
In spite of these issues, I feel the book still works. I salute Dalrymple's calm attitude when dealing with government red tape and his quiet acceptance of the early 90s Indian idiosyncrasies
Give this book a shot, you won't regret it, 4/5.
