‘Martial races’ and ‘imperial subjects’: violence and governance in colonial India, 1857–1914

This essay explores the specificity of colonial violence in India. Although imperial and military historians are familiar with several instances of such violence—notably the rebellion in 1857 and the 1919 massacre at the Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar—there is a broader, and arguably more significant, history that has largely escaped attention. In contrast to metropolitan European states, where sovereignty derived, at least in principle, from a covenant between subjects and government, the sovereign power of the colonial state was always predicated on the violent subjugation of ‘the natives’. However, while violence was integral to colonialism, such violence was never a purely metropolitan agency: most of those recruited to serve in the colonial military were, themselves, Indian. Exploring the history of the imperial military in South Asia after 1857, the paper outlines the complex and rather ambiguous relationship between the colonial state and its ‘native armies’. RESUME Cet article se penche sur la spe´cificite´ de la violence coloniale. Malgre´ des exemples familiers—comme la grande re´volte de 1857 en Inde ou le massacre de Jallianwalla Bagh a` Amritsar en 1919—il y a une histoire plus large et plus importante qui a e´chappe´e a` l’attention des historiens. Contrairement aux e´tats europe´ens ou la souverainete´ de´rivait en principe du moins d’un contrat social entre les acteurs sociaux, le pouvoir souverain de l’e´tat colonial restait fonde´ sur la subjugation violente des indige`nes.

L'histoire assassinee: Manfredo Tafuri and the present

Italian historian Manfredo Tafuri develops his ‘historical project’ in architecture during the 1960’s and 1970’s in three seminal books, which reach the English speaking specialist audience with a certain delay. Histories and Theories of Architecture (1968), which prepares the ground for the redefinition of a critical and independent history of architecture is first translated in English in 1979. Architecture and Utopia (Progetto e utopia, 1973) is translated in 1976, and becomes a point of reference for architectural histories and for the definition of architectural theories, mainly in the United States. The Sphere and the Labyrinth (1980), translated in 1987, is the text which formally defines and presents the ‘historical project’. Tafuri’s dense and highly politicized prose is often subjected in the English versions to numerous simplifications and reductive interpretations. Yet, the time lag and the space between languages that these translations occupy are inhabited by polemical and fertile reactions to the texts from the world of architectural design. Symptomatic of all, Aldo Rossi’s L’architecture assassinée, a rebuke in drawing to some of Tafuri’s remarks in Architecture and Utopia that seemed to suggest -but the interpretation is arguable– the ‘death’ of architecture as project (progetto). Tafuri’s texts instigate a dialogue between architectural history and practice, particularly relevant at a time in the development of the discipline when history was being redefined in its critical role as a ‘project’ –thus appropriating the active and propositional role traditionally assigned to architectural design–, while architectural design –still coping with the legacy of Modernism and with changed production systems- often found itself relegated to the paper of exhibitions, competitions and theoretical projects. This paper explores the relationship between architectural history and design in Tafuri’s work, focusing on recent reconsideration and interpretations of his work. It argues that, beyond instrumental simplifications, Tafuri’s ‘project’ remains active and essential in architecture’s critical culture today.