Bombay and Calcutta were more than just administrative capitals of British India. They were showcases of imperial might, hubs of economic and cultural activity, and physical embodiments of colonial urban design. Both cities bore deep imprints of the East India Company and British rule, marked by planned spatial divisions, distinct infrastructures, economic integration, and layered cultural dynamics.
Bombay, granted to the British by the Portuguese in 1661, began as sparsely inhabited islands off India’s west coast. The East India Company transformed it into a port city, building the fortified Bombay Fort, a nucleus that eventually expanded into the Bombay Presidency. Similarly, the Company established a factory in Calcutta and later constructed Fort William, around which the city grew, eventually to become the largest of the three ports.
Colonial Space: The ‘White’ & ‘Black’ Towns
A distinct feature of colonial cities was their spatial segregation. Bombay and Calcutta were divided into ‘white towns’ for the British and Europeans, and ‘black towns’ for the native population. Bombay’s masters had tried to impose upon it a spatial order which defined and regulated usage, function, and habitation within its expanding parameters. (Masselos, 2007)
White towns were well-planned, cleaner, greener, and marked by institutions like universities, churches, police stations, government buildings, gymkhanas, and parks. Large bungalows, wide boulevards, neoclassical buildings, and manicured gardens could be found here. Civil Lines housed British authorities, traders, academics, and civil servants, with the focus of most enhancements and municipal revenue. After the 1857 Rebellion, fear of native uprisings intensified segregation. Military cantonments were strategically placed on city outskirts, as Robert Home explains, to “isolate British troops from native populations while maintaining rapid mobilization capabilities” (Home, 1997).
In contrast, black towns were dense, unplanned areas where the native population lived and worked. The bazaars were vibrant, with homes stacked above shops. The Fort area in Bombay, for instance, was distinctly divided: the northern part of the Fort was Indian, the Southern British. Areas like Malabar Hills housed the local elites, in the ‘Raj parts’ of Bombay.
Architectural historian Swati Chattopadhyay describes the architecture of the colonial city structures as “… transplantation of English ideas on Indian soil, attenuated/disfigured by vagaries of local labor and availability of building materials” (Chattopadhyay, 2005). Compared to traditional Indian settlements, these cities had a very different layout that emphasized control, segregation, and the demonstration of imperial power.
Trade, Industry, & Imperial Profit
The economic trajectories of Bombay and Calcutta were shaped by their integration into global commodity chains. Calcutta grew as a jute and tea trading hub, while Bombay flourished with the cotton trade. Peripheral development of coal-powered industries like cotton mills on Bombay Island or jute mills along the waterways near Calcutta were an important component in urban expansion. (Kosambi, 1998) Railroads and telegraph systems integrated these cities into the global capitalist network, enabling smooth exports of raw materials and imports of British goods.
Bombay’s cotton trade surged during the American Civil War (1861–65), as British mills turned to Indian cotton. By 1865, Bombay accounted for 40% of global cotton exports (Dossal, 2010). The city’s mills, owned by Parsi entrepreneurs like Jamsetji Tata, employed thousands of migrants but operated under exploitative conditions. As Rajnarayan Chandavarkar notes in his book History, Culture and the Indian City, “By the mid-nineteenth century, Bombay had established itself as a major port and cotton market and had begun to acquire the shape of a major metropolitan center.”
Calcutta’s jute industry, dominated by Scottish firms like Bird & Co., transformed the Hooghly riverbanks into a belt of factories. By 1900, Calcutta processed 75% of the world’s jute, enriching British investors while leaving Bengali laborers in poverty (Das Gupta, 2010). The railways, introduced in 1853, accelerated resource extraction, Bombay’s Victoria Terminus and Calcutta’s Howrah Station became gateways for raw materials enroute to global markets. The Hooghly River served as a crucial trade route, linking Calcutta to the interior of Bengal thus enabling export to outside markets. Calcutta’s bara-bazaar was the commercial heartbeat, frequented by Arabs, Persians, Turks, and Chinese- a true global trading port.
Melting Pots of Culture & Identity
The diversity of these cities was striking, populated by an amalgamation of cultures, religions, and communities. By 1921, most of Bombay’s residents had been born outside the city. Hindus were the majority, Muslims formed a significant part, and Parsis were amongst the largest property-owners wielding disproportionate influence. Families like the Wadias and Tatas patronized public institutions like the Prince of Wales Museum, symbolizing their dual allegiance to Indian identity and colonial modernity.
In Calcutta, Bengali speakers dominated, but Hindustani became the language of commerce, signifying the ethno-linguistic diversity. Between white and black towns lived intermediary communities of Anglo-Indians, Armenians, Jews, Chinese, Parsis, Greeks that played unique social and economic roles. English became the elite language of administration and education, and a new Western-educated middle class emerged, which eventually led the independence movement.
These cities fostered cultural syncretism and resistance. Calcutta became the epicenter of the Bengal Renaissance, with figures like Rabindranath Tagore blending Indian traditions with Enlightenment ideals. The city’s coffee houses and newspapers like Amrita Bazar Patrika incubated anti-colonial thought. Bombay, meanwhile, saw the rise of the Girangaon (mill district) culture, where Marathi theater and labor unions coexisted.
Administration & Governance Structures
The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (1865) and Calcutta Municipal Act (1876) institutionalized urban governance but prioritized European interests. Municipal cooperations were introduced for local governance issues, and maintenance of community facilities and services. Initially there was a British appointed chairman but later elected representatives were included.
With the passage of time the elected Indian representatives became involved in local and provincial government, but still had limited power, a token gesture critiqued by nationalist leader Dadabhai Naoroji as ‘municipal imperialism’. Development of these cooperations helped in the urbanization of the cities as they undertook urban development and construction projects. These colonial administration structures are still present in the cities today.
Public Health Crises
Colonial cities were sites of stark health disparities. The British blamed ‘native filth’ for epidemics like cholera and plague, using sanitation as a tool of control. The Bombay City Improvement Trust (1898) demolished slums under the guise of plague prevention, displacing 200,000 residents by 1918 (Arnold, 1993). Calcutta’s drainage systems prioritized White Town, leaving Black Town’s bustees flooded and disease-ridden.
The 1896 bubonic plague, which killed 10,000 in Bombay, exposed the inhumanity of colonial public health policies, which focused on slum demolitions rather than medical relief. Public health campaigns often targeted Indian cultural practices. For instance, the 1899 Anti-Spitting Act in Bombay criminalized pan-chewing, framing it as unhygienic rather than addressing overcrowding (Kidambi, 2007).
Education & the Rise of Nationalist Thought
Colonial education in Bombay and Calcutta was a double-edged sword. Designed to create a class of ‘Anglicized Indians’ loyal to the Crown, it instead sowed the seeds of dissent by exposing students to Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and self-determination. A foundational education at Calcutta’s Presidency College (1817) and Bombay’s Elphinstone College (1835) provided early academic grounding for thinkers like Subhas Chandra Bose and B.R. Ambedkar, who later became pivotal figures in India’s struggle for independence and social justice. Sanjay Seth notes, “English education created a class that used Enlightenment ideals to critique colonialism itself”.
Colonial Monuments & Memory
Colonial monuments in Bombay and Calcutta were not merely aesthetic endeavors, they were instruments of ideological control, designed to legitimize British rule and imprint imperial authority onto the urban psyche. These structures, blending European grandeur with selective appropriations of Indian motifs, served as daily reminders of colonial dominance while erasing indigenous histories. Bombay’s Elphinstone Circle (1864), a Georgian-style plaza, replaced a bustling Indian market, while Calcutta’s Dalhousie Square, erased Mughal-era landmarks. This spatial rewriting “rendered native history invisible, casting India as a land without a past worthy of preservation” (Chattopadhyay, 2005).
Calcutta boasted the Writers’ Building, University of Calcutta, and the Indian Museum—with its monuments and statues symbolizing British control and cultural hegemony. The Victoria Memorial (1921), a sprawling white marble edifice funded by Indian taxes, was Lord Curzon’s vision of a ‘British Taj Mahal’. Its domed Renaissance architecture, flanked by statues of colonial officials, enshrined Queen Victoria as the Empress of India, erasing the 1857 Rebellion’s anti-colonial fervor.
The University of Bombay and the Asiatic Society embodied knowledge production. In Bombay, the Gateway of India constructed in 1924, stood as a grand ceremonial entryway and a lasting symbol of British presence. Ironically, it later became a symbolic exit point for departing British troops in 1947, reframed by history as a ‘gateway’ to decolonization.
The Dark Side: Labor Living Conditions & Environmental Degradation
Migrant labor poured into these cities: Gujarati banias from all over the presidency moved from Gujarat and Bombay. The Marwaris came from Punjab and settled in Calcutta. Workers faced brutal living conditions. Radha Kumar, in City Lives: Workers’ Housing and Rent in Bombay notes the Bombay chawls were “mostly rickety structures… often collapsed, injuring and killing the residents,” with “minimum six to-nine people living in one room and as its maximum over twenty.”
In Calcutta, jute workers in bustees faced seasonal floods and cholera outbreaks. The 1921 Census noted a 35% mortality rate among mill workers’ children (Sen, 1999). Labor resistance, however, simmered Bombay’s 1928 textile strike and Calcutta’s 1946 Royal Indian Navy Mutiny foreshadowed the end of empire.
Unfortunately, the rapid urbanization devastated the local ecologies. The reclamation of Bombay’s seven islands disrupted mangrove ecosystems, while Calcutta’s jute mills polluted the Hooghly River. Environmental historian Rohan D’Souza notes that colonial projects treated nature as infinite and expendable (D’Souza, 2006).
However, indigenous communities did resist these changes. In Bombay, the Koli fishermen protested land grabs, while Calcutta’s bhadralok (educated elites) critiqued industrial pollution in journals like Sabuj Patra. Colonial officials dismissed these impacts, framing environmental exploitation as a ‘civilizing mission’ to tame India’s ‘wild’ landscapes. Profit over sustainability was prioritized, a mindset that post-independence governments inherited.
Colonial Legacy and Urban Futures
Bombay (Mumbai) and Calcutta (Kolkata) embody the dualities of colonialism: oppression and opportunity, segregation and synthesis. They are iconic representations of the complex dynamics between capitalism, culture, power, urban development, and imperial grandeur that characterized British colonial authority in India.
Their urban landscapes, carved by British design, enforced racial hierarchies, while their economies fueled the global market at the cost of exploited labor. Yet, these cities also incubated resistance: Western-educated elites dismantled colonial logic using its own tools, and migrant communities forged vibrant, hybrid identities.
Their distinct characteristics offer insightful information about the processes of imperial development and how it affects urban environments. Modern urban governance in India was made possible by the administration and governance systems that the British established. Gaining an understanding of the traits that characterized Bombay and Calcutta as distinct colonial cities can help one appreciate the intricacies of colonial legacies and how they continue to influence urban life in post-colonial India today.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the South Asia Times.
