This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 24 October 2014, At: 16:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South Asian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsas20

Whitefield: An Important but Forgotten Chapter ofIndia's Colonial HeritageKrupa Rajangam aa School of Architecture, BMS College of Engineering , Bangalore, IndiaPublished online: 22 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Krupa Rajangam (2011) Whitefield: An Important but Forgotten Chapter of India's Colonial Heritage,South Asian Studies, 27:1, 89-110, DOI: 10.1080/02666030.2011.556013

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02666030.2011.556013

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Whitefield: An Important but Forgotten Chapter of India’sColonial HeritageKrupa Rajangam*School of Architecture, BMS College of Engineering, Bangalore, India

The late nineteenth-century Anglo-Indian settlement inWhitefield is about sixteen kilometres east of Bangalore, India. Itwas originally an independent village, but has since been co-opted as a city suburb.This paper presents an overviewof the research project carried out in Whitefield over a six month period fromMay to

November 2009, involving documentation and analysis of the settlement, plots, and bungalows. AtWhitefield we found aunique experiment, possibly of national significance: ‘a self sufficient Anglo-Indian Utopia where no man would ownproperty and all would work towards the common good’, perhaps based on both European ideals and the Indian villagemodel.Today this place is under threat of indiscriminate development. The CDP (Comprehensive Development Plan) for

Bangalore makes no mention of its historical nature. It is truly a forgotten chapter of India’s colonial heritage. Moreover,as there is no heritage legislation in Bangalore, there is no legal protection for any historical area or structure in the city,and thus the onus is on local people to protect the town’s remaining heritage. Furthermore, in the course of interactionswith the local community in this settlement over the research period it seemed that the residents were truly aware of theirpast and the need to carry it forward for the benefit of future generations.

Keywords: Anglo-Indian; heritage; Whitefield; bungalows; colonial; conservation; India

Introduction

Whitefield is one of Bangalore’s better known suburbs,about 16 kilometres east of the heart of the old Britishcantonment (the Civil and Military Station), an upmarketarea with a number of gated estates, villas, bungalows,high-end apartments, and malls. It rose to prominence inthe 1990swhen the areawas declared a Special EconomicZone (SEZ) and the earliest Information Technologypark (ITPL) of the city was set up here (Bangalore ispopularly known as India’s Silicon Valley). The area isnow a prominent IT hub with a number of global firmsoperating from here.

Before IT made it well known, Whitefield was asleepy suburb of Bangalore, known for the ashram ofthe spiritual leader Sathya Sai Baba. In fact, even theorigin of the name Whitefield is not generally known. Itis believed that the place was called Whitefield becausein the past ‘whites’ used to live here. The history of thearea and its possible significance is unknown and peoplewonder about the nature of any historical research thatcould be undertaken in the area (Figure 1).

I first visited Whitefield two years ago, having heardof some colonial style bungalows in the area, when a fewof us were scouting the city to locate its remaining pock-ets of built heritage. The Inner and Outer Circles of

Whitefield were surprising in that they not only lookeddifferent from other heritage precincts that we found, butthey also appeared to have been largely forgotten by time.

However, this impression did not last long. All toosoon, we heard about proposals to bifurcate the centralCircle and give one half over to commercial developmentand road widening proposals that threatened the churchand bungalow plots. Intrigued by the circular layout,which I had not seen elsewhere in India, and feeling asense of urgency to do something, I applied for fundingthrough the INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art andCultural Heritage) to trace the settlement’s history anddocument its layout and some of its important structures.It appeared that such a study had not been attemptedearlier. The six month research project uncovered someinteresting and important information.

The settlement is named after D. S.White, the founderof the Anglo-Indian Association (Figure 2), who wasinstrumental in creating this little ‘peaceful’ enclave andintended it to be a self-sufficient village for Anglo-Indians and Eurasians, a place where ‘all would worktowards the common good’. While there seems to besome doubt over the success of Whitefield as an agricul-tural settlement, it did become popular with pensionersdue to its proximity to Kolar Gold Fields, where manyAnglo-Indians and Eurasians were employed. Thus it

South Asian StudiesVol. 27, No.1, March 2011, 89–110

*Email: rajangamk@gmail.com

ISSN 0266-6030 print/ISSN 2153-2699 online© 2011 The British Association for South Asian StudiesDOI 10.1080/02666030.2011.556013http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

saw fairly steady growth with a number of people takingup plots and constructing houses, though not for theoriginal purpose of setting up as agriculturalists, butrather as weekend getaways for shooting parties in theextensive surrounding open countryside.1

Documentation and analysis

Besides literature reviewand archival study related to theplots, the documentation methodology employedincluded observations from a visual survey of the site,personal interviews with long-term residents, the use of acomparative matrix of plots and structures, an inventoryof heritage structures within the settlement, and detaileddrawings of the most significant structures. This workhad a number of objectives: to trace the original boundaryof the 3900-acre land parcel, including both the villageand the agricultural lands around it; to find the reason foror the thinking behind the circular pattern of the settle-ment; to establish the aim of the settlement; to find thebasis for granting land to the original settlers and toascertain their numbers; to record the original plot divi-sions on a settlement map; to locate the earliest publicbuildings or the site where they might have originallystood; to make an inventory of the settlement’s survivingbuilt heritage; and to record the significant structures.

Within the scope of these objectives, the originalvillage limit could be traced (Figures 3–5), but not thepresent extent of the overall land grant. The reasoning

1. Location plan of Whitefield, Bangalore. © Google 2008.

2. David Emmanuel Starkenburgh White. Print hanging on thewall of the Whitefield Club. Author’s photograph.

90 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

3. 1936 archival image showing the limit of the original village or circle. The single isolated plot to the top of the triangular wedge is theinn, Waverley. State Government Archives, Revenue Department Proceedings of the Government of His Highness Maharaja of Mysore,1936.

South Asian Studies 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

4.Overlay

ofarchivalmap

andpresent-da

yplotbo

unda

ries,w

hich

makes

itclearthatthevilla

georiginallycomprised

justtheInnerCircle.Th

eOuter

Circlean

dassociated

plotscame

muchlater.Origina

lpublic

build

ings

that

nolonger

functio

nor

exista

rehigh

lighted.A

utho

r’sdraw

ing.

92 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

5. Map showing the limit of Whitefield Panchayat (village council) and Gramthana (i.e. the non-agricultural or residential component, thearea within the dotted circle. Within this the small portion jutting out to the west corresponds to Waverley). The formal notification of thesettlement as a village appears to have been carried out in 1931. The map was found discarded in the local Panchayat office.

South Asian Studies 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

6. Memorial Church. Author’s photograph.

7. Perfect Peace, one of the bungalows in Whitefield, today. Author’s photograph.

94 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

behind the circular pattern and the aims of the settlementare addressed below. The process by which settlers wereselected remains unclear. However, we know that therewere originally twenty plots with one church plot,besides eight added at a later date, including the RomanCatholic church (Figures 3–4).2

Of the public buildings, the two churches are stillstanding, though the Catholic church has been altered.The cemetery and inn (Waverley) still exist. The schoolwas supposedly located in the centre of the village green,while the post and telegraph office was in the structureimmediately north of Waverley. The public library waslocated within the Institute, now the Whitefield Club. Abuilt heritage inventory was undertaken (extracts inAppendix with images in Figures 6–8) and three signifi-cant structures (Memorial Church, Waverley, and thebungalowDilkusha) were documented as they are largelyunaltered (extracts in Figures 9–10).

An analysis of the findings starting at village leveland proceeding to the level of each individual bungalowwas carried out.

Village

The original land grant, planned to be about 8000 acres,was finally reduced to 3900 acres. About 542 acres of thiswas allotted to Whitefield, the rest going to other pro-posed settlements which were later abandoned. About 20acres was allotted to each farm holding while the villagesite (i.e. Whitefield) occupied 30 acres of land. Thecentral circular village green corresponded to 6.5 acresand the remaining holding of 19.5 acres was divided intotwenty residential plots, plus the church and the inn. Ofthe twenty, the plot next to the church was allotted to theInstitute, which later became the Whitefield Club.

In contrast to the various cantonment towns ofBangalore being set up around the same time and gen-erally laid on a grid pattern dotted with garden squares,Whitefield was laid out as a circle with a central villagegreen. This pattern also contrasts with the model of atraditional Indian village, which tended to be laid out ina series of zones, each occupied by a particular com-munity, with the temple square as the nodal point.

8. Perfect Peace (also known as Hill View Cottage) in 1956. From a photograph owned by the current occupier, Paul D’Souza.

South Asian Studies 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

9. Documentation of Memorial Church. Author’s drawings. (a) Site plan

96 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

9. (b) Plans and elevations.

South Asian Studies 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

10. Documentation of Waverley. Author’s drawings. (a) Elevations

98 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

10. (b) Plans

South Asian Studies 99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

11. Howard’s Garden City. From E. Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, 2nd edn (London: Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd., 1902), p. 15;<http://www.library.cornell.edu/Reps/DOCS/howard.htm> [accessed December 2010].

12. Google Earth image of Whitefield settlement today. Central open area, two rows of plots around it and cultivable land beyond, sincedeveloped. Image © 2008 Digital Globe © 2008 Europa Technologies.

100 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

13. The once original plot boundary divided into a number of smaller plots, some accessed from the Outer Circle road and some from theInner Circle road. The original bungalow still stands in the middle (in this case Dilkusha). Author’s drawing.

South Asian Studies 101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Prima facie the planning resembles the principles pro-posed by Ebenezer Howard’s late nineteenth-centuryGarden City movement, which advocated settlementplanning based on a central open area with plots rangedaround it and cultivable land beyond forming a greenbelt. This is exactly what is observed at Whitefield(Figures 11–12). However, the layout likely owes itsexistence more to the general impact of the Europeanthinking of the time rather than the direct influence of aparticular movement.

Plots

Most original plots have since been subdivided, exceptthe inn, Waverley, where the structure also remainsintact. The plots further from the main road are moreintact. In order to facilitate plot subdivision where theoriginal structure still stands, most of the curtilage(stables, kitchens, outhouses, servants’ quarters) has

been demolished. There are three broad types of plotsubdivision (Figures 13–14): those in which the originalhouse still stands to the rear, with smaller plots and newbungalows in front; those in which the entire plot is builtup as an apartment block; and those in which the entireplot is built up as a new bungalow.

Bungalows

Each original bungalow followed a similar concept to thecolonial bungalows of the British cantonment inBangalore – the house in the centre, set back from theplot edge on all sides, and a driveway leading to the porchand the house, with separate blocks for the kitchen, ser-vants’ quarters, and stables (Figure 15). However, theWhitefield bungalows were smaller, with plot sizes ofabout three quarters of an acre rather than the two to threeacres allotted to each plot of the cantonment bungalows.

14. Entire plot boundary rebuilt as apartment blocks or new bungalows. Author’s photograph.

102 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

15. Typical plot layout of a Whitefield bungalow (in this case Waverley). Author’s drawing.

South Asian Studies 103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

16. Typical layout of a bungalow – symmetrical about the central axis. (In this case Dilkusha – the use of Rooms 6 and 7 as stores and 8 asa kitchen are later additions). Author’s drawing.

104 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

The house itself was symmetrically planned in a man-ner similar to the cantonment bungalows (Figure 16). Theoverall style of the houses within the village appears tohave been fairly uniform: a central porch with tiled roofsupported on two pillars; amain living areawith decorativegable endswith circular lights and a pitched roof taller thanthe lean-to abutting its longer ends (Figures 17–18).However, the overall appearance was far more austerethan that of the cantonment bungalows, which were morerichly ornamented and treated with decorative finials,carved barge and eaves boards, and monkey tops(Figure 19).

Review and discussion

The earliest known reference to Whitefield is the 1897Mysore Gazette by Lewis Rice, which states that theAnglo-Indian colony of Whitefield was set up in 1882to the east of Bangalore (Cantonment) and was namedafter D. S. White, the founder of the Eurasian and Anglo-

Indian Association of Madras. Whitefield became themost prominent of the proposed settlements and by1895 ‘permanent residents numbered 115 with 12 cot-tages built on the village site and 14 houses on the farmholdings, a Protestant Church, holding both Church ofEngland and Dissenting services with the parsonageunder construction, and a school with 31 pupils’.Furthermore, ‘more land was leased from the Jodidar ofPattandur, a village adjoining Whitefield to the north andthis portion contained the Roman Catholic chapel, par-sonage, and 8 houses’.3

The next record is J. D. Rees’s travelogue, a narrative ofhis travels with Lord Connemara (the then MadrasGovernor) to various parts of India, includingWhitefield, in 1890. Rice, in writing the Gazette, reportedfacts, while Rees recorded more of his impressions of lifein Whitefield and highlighted the general notion of itsexperimental nature. He introduces Whitefield as a settle-ment where ‘someone has tried to achieve the impossibil-ity of making the Eurasian a farmer’ and quotes

17. Typical façade style of a Whitefield bungalow, in this case 381/22. Author’s photograph.

South Asian Studies 105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

extensively from D. S. White’s 1879Guide to the Eurasianand Anglo-Indian Villages, whereWhite states that the aimof the settlement was to lead ‘them [Eurasians] into agri-cultural and industrial pursuits and to remove forever thefeeling of anxiety as regards their own future and that oftheir children’, and that in laying the foundation of the firstsettlement, the Association was ‘laying the foundation ofthousands of others’.4

Rees believed thatWhitewas too sanguine in his initialvision of the settlement as a place ‘where there would beno private property and everyone would do what is bestfitted to his/her nature and all would work towards acommon good’. This Anglo-Indian Utopia of sorts was aself-sufficient farming community in which, supposedly,‘the ideal colonist would leave the model village in themorning with the Georgics in one hand and a spade in theother, would live laborious days, and spend his eveningsprobably in comparingWhitefield with Plato’s Republic inthe public library, the central point in the settlement fromwhich all streets were to radiate’.5

Dennis Fitzpatrick, then a Resident of Mysore,appears to have been more critical, stating outright thatWhite’s project of ‘forming a self-contained community,possessing its own artisans and excluding competition,was altogether chimerical’.6 While the settlement appearsto owe more to Western thinking in terms of its formalplanning, Fitzpatrick believed thatWhitewas overly influ-enced by the social structure of an Indian village, a largelyself-contained unit with different community groups, eachspecialised in a particular trade or craft. In his book,Whiteeven suggests a list of suitable trades and occupations thatcould be practiced by the settlers. Rees concurred withFitzpatrick’s view on the experiment, but he did feel that,as far as possible, theMadras Government should help thesettlers and the Association.7

The next record is from the 1920 edition of Campbell’sDirectory forMysore and Bangalore, which noted a shift inthe nature of the settlement. It states that ‘whether theformation of this agricultural settlement has been anaccomplished fact is a matter of opinion, but there is nodoubt that it has become a very popular health resort forinvalids and pensioners’. It also recorded the fairly goodshooting to be had in the vicinity: duck, teal, and otherwild fowl in winter, and partridge, quail, and hare all yearround, and ‘good snipe around the Settlement’.8

An earlier perspective is offered by an anonymouscollection of notes on Whitefield called ‘All aboutWhitefield’, found with some residents. These wereprobably written around 1907. They describe the sameshift in the nature of the settlement and state that it was‘pretty much impossible to find accommodation, duringsummer, due to the number of visitors who flock to theplace’. The author laments the fact that very few residentshad turned to agriculture, but celebrates the existence of

‘some evidence of horticultural pursuits on the land’. Onepractical reason for the change in the nature of the set-tlement could be that the place always lacked sufficientwater supply. Another could be that the Anglo-Indiansand Eurasians who lived here lacked the necessary exper-tise to make a living from agriculture.9

Regardless of the reason for its evolution, the trendaccording to which Whitefield came to be seen as apensioners’ paradise seems to have continued well intothe 1990s, ending only with the establishment of the ITPark and consequent changes to the area.

Coincidental observations

A number of nuggets of information, some contradictory,were uncovered in the course of repeated interactionswith current residents ofWhitefield. A famous purportedvisitor to the place was Winston Churchill. He is thoughtto have stayed inWhitefield one summer, either at the inn(Waverley) or with a resident. Kenneth Anderson(1910–1974), the wild game hunter and later conservatorand writer, popularly known as ‘Jim Corbett of theSouth’, had a weekend cottage in Whitefield, though notwithin the original village limits. It was situated near thecemetery plot. Reverend Peck, a long term resident, wassupposed to have been hired by the British, to teachEnglish to the Italian prisoners of war detained in bar-racks near Whitefield railway station, to the north. It wasconveyed that these prisoners laid the first road connect-ingWhitefield to Krishna Raja Puram (KR Puram) to thewest, towards the cantonment.

It was also communicated that Indians were allowedwithin the original village limit (or ‘Circle’) only fromdawn to dusk, but other long-term residents disagreedthat it was so. On a related theme, it is interesting to notethat from the earlydays of the settlement there was a viewthat residents were unable to get along with each other.Rice also mentions reports of claims on the land by theMadras Association, which were fended off.10 However,the main source of unity amongst the residents seems tohave been a belief that the Anglo-Indian character of theplace should be maintained (see Figure 20).

Conclusion

It is likely that the circular planning of Whitefield was aproduct of its time, a mixture of East andWest. The notionof forming a self-contained community appears to havebeen taken from the Indian village, while the spatial plan-ning,with its circular inward nature, probablyderives fromWestern influence. In any case, there does seem to beenough evidence to affirm that both ideas – the circular

106 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

19. Typical façade style of a cantonment bungalow, with its monkey tops, decorative gables, barge and eaves boards, and finials.Reproduced by permission of Pankaj Modi.

18. Typical façade style of a Whitefield bungalow, in this case Rosscroft. Author’s photograph.

South Asian Studies 107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

20. Part of a letter to Dewan Mirza Ismail by a former president of the Association, written in response to the Dewan’s request for hisopinion on the petition to remove Association control from the settlers and the counter petition to retain Association control. The writernotes that ‘it is practically impossible to get unity or co-operative work among the settlers’ and that ‘the Whitefield squabbles have beennotorious for many years’, and finally requests that ‘no matter what the Anglo-Indian character of the place be maintained’. MysoreGovernment Proceedings, 1936.

108 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

layout and the self-sustaining nature of the place –originated with White himself. Similarly, at the level ofplots and bungalows Whitefield incorporates elementsfrom its more affluent neighbours, the British residents ofthe cantonment, but alsomakes an attempt to ‘sacrifice to thecommon good’ through comparatively sober facades andsmaller plot sizes, again probably due to White’s influence.

The resulting settlement is most likely unique inIndia, with neither precedents nor antecedents in termsof both its planning and its origin as a possible solution tothe ‘Eurasian problem’, as it tended to be articulated.Today, Whitefield’s uniqueness is ignored. TheMemorial Church may be lost due to road-widening andthe nature of the settlement continues to be threatened, asthe few remaining bungalow plots may also be trans-formed and the central circular green re-developed. Theauthorities, the general public, and even experts continueto be unaware of this chapter of India’s colonial heritage.Even the CDP (Comprehensive Development Plan) forBangalore makes no mention of this area’s historical nat-ure, which has truly been forgotten. Moreover, as there isno heritage legislation in Bangalore, there is no legalprotection for any historical area or structure in the city(that is not nationallyor regionally protected) and the onustherefore falls on people to raise concerns about these.During my interactions with the local community in thissettlement over the research period, I really sensed anawareness of a past which needs to be carried forwardfor the benefit of future generations.

It would be idealistic to hope that, as an outcome ofthis research, the old circular settlement might bedeclared a conservation area/heritage precinct and itssignificant structures listed. However, in collaborationwith UDBHAVA (Urban Design Built Heritage andVisual Arts Forum, Bangalore) and Max MuellerBhavan/Goethe Institut Bangalore, some attempt hasbeen made in the last couple of years to raise localawareness of the unique nature of the settlement througha series of events, including a heritage walk, a heritagehunt, and talks. As part of the awareness-building exer-cise, the findings of the study were also presented toresidents who were unanimous in appreciating the effortput into the study and were happy with the methodologyand the outcome.

At least a part of this local history that appears to havegenerally been forgotten is now available in writing forfuture scholarly research. Further research could be under-taken by making a comparative study with other Anglo-Indian settlements in India, in order fully to elucidate thenational significance of the experiment that wasWhitefield. Documenting the oral history of the placewould also be an important step, as built heritage is justone aspect of the story of Whitefield; indeed, this is cur-rently being proposed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is extremely grateful to all the residents ofWhitefield for their warm welcome, their willingness tospare time and share past anecdotes, and their overallhelp in making the research easier. Special thanks toMerlyn & Paul D’Souza, Deepa Peck, Cecil Dewars,Margaret Lunel, Latha & George Verghese, Sheila &Vivian D’Souza, Saam Mahabaleshwarwala, Mrs &Col. Thomas, Mrs & Mr Giddens and Dr Mani Chackoof the Ecumenical Christian Centre, Whitefield. Theauthor acknowledges the INTACH Karnataka ChapterHQ and INTACH UK for the grant. Finally, thanks aredue to the enlisted students of BMS School ofArchitecture, Bangalore for their help in the process ofdocumenting the settlement and some of its significantstructures.

APPENDIX

Two sample inventory sheets from the heritageinventory

Inventory sheet for Memorial Church

Current name of site: Memorial ChurchHistoric or other name(s): -Location: Whitefield Inner CircleApproach and accessibility: Main roadCurrent ownership: Church of South IndiaHistoric usage: Place of worshipPresent usage: Place of worshipBrief note on history: Constructed in 1886 on three

quarters of an acre of land in the Inner Circle donatedby the Anglo-Indian Association. Planned as a non-denominational church, managed by a churchcommittee.

Brief physical description: The rectangular church wasbuilt in the neo-gothic style. The vestries on eitherside of the entrance and the front porch were addedin 1940 in a similar style through the Hardinge Fund(Mrs Hardinge had bequeathed money to theProtestant Church). The masonry construction isroofed in terracotta ‘Mangalore’ tiles supported ontimber trusses while the vestries are roofed in the‘Madras flat terrace’ style. The two small squarerooms to the rear housed the dispensary (a doctorused to visit weekly) and kitchen.

Condition: Well maintained, structurally soundSecondary information: The church is unique in that

Roman Catholic, Church of England, and otherdenominational services were all held under thesame roof on different days and at differenttimes. Catholic services were discontinued when

South Asian Studies 109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4

their own church was built, but other servicescontinue even today.11

Inventory sheet for Hill View Cottage

Current name of site: Perfect PeaceHistoric or other name(s): Hill View CottageLocation: Inner CircleApproach and accessibility: Main roadCurrent ownership: PrivateHistoric usage: ResidencePresent usage: ResidenceBrief note on history: Actual date of construction is not

known but the 1936 archival map notes a P. Rector asthe owner, which corresponds to the earliest availabledocuments, which state that aMs Patience Rector soldthe property in 1944.

Brief physical description: Typical bungalow withcentral entrance porch and rooms arranged symme-trically on either side. Masonry construction withtiled roof on timber trusses. Original core stillroofed in terracotta ‘Country’ tiles while the lateradditions to it on three sides are roofed in terracotta‘Mangalore’ tiles. The stables still stand but havebeen altered extensively.

Condition: Well maintained, structurally soundSecondary information: The black-and-white photo-

graph (Figure 8) was taken in 1956 when the prop-

erty was a single large plot extending from the Innerto Outer Circle roads. It shows the original corestructure, since expanded on three sides. Themango tree still stands though it is no longer partof the original property.

NOTES

1. All about Whitefield, a Report ([n. p.]: [n. pub.],[n. d.]) – sections retrieved from the collections ofReverend Peck, past Whitefield resident.

2. B. L. Rice, A Gazetteer, Compiled for Government(Mysore; London: [n. pub.], 1897; repr. New Delhi:Asian Educational Services, 2001).

3. Ibid., p. 93.4. J. D. Rees, Narrative of Tours in India (Madras:

Superintendent, Government Press, 1891), pp.298–99.

5. Ibid., p. 311.6. Ibid., p. 304.7. Ibid., p. 311.8. Campbell’s Directory for Mysore and Bangalore

([n. p.]: Campbell & Sons, 1920), pp. 94–95.9. All about Whitefield.

10. Rice, p. 93.11. ‘The Story of a Church’ (Bangalore: Perpetual Help

Press,1977) – a pamphlet about the church, nowoutof print.

110 Krupa Rajangam

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:49

24

Oct

ober

201

4