Delhi, 1877

The word durbar comes from the Persian of the Mughal courts (dar, a door or portal; baar, admittance), naming the moment of audience, when the ruler sat in full regalia to hear petitions, receive his subjects, and exchange gifts of cloth in a formal language of obligation and return. The robe you were given by your sovereign carried something of him in it. To wear it was to wear his protection, and to offer it was to bind yourself to him, and he, at least in principle, to you. However lopsided the arrangement, the ceremony pretended to mutual accounting. Power trickled down, loyalty returned in kind, and somewhere in the exchange of cloth was the acknowledgment that a ruler was answerable to the people he ruled.

The British, careful students of other people’s rituals by imperial necessity, understood the form of the durbar perfectly.

On the first of January, 1877, some sixty-eight thousand guests gathered on a plain north of Delhi that the organizers had lately renamed Coronation Park, to witness the proclamation of Queen Victoria as Qaisar-i-Hind, Empress of India. The man who dreamed the occasion into being was Robert Bulwer-Lytton, first Earl of Lytton. Viceroy of the British Raj, minor poet, and an incurable romantic of empire, Bearded Bob (see second image below) was a believer to his marrow in the civilizing spectacle he was about to stage. He had spent months on the arrangements (not to mention hundreds of thousands of pounds), and his durbar would be the largest assembly of subjects the subcontinent had ever seen. Impossible to forget, if he had anything to say about it.

The princes arrived in the order of their gun salutes: twenty-one for the greatest among them, then seventeen, fifteen, thirteen, eleven, a descending scale of artillery meant to honor the rank of each maharaja in kind. They came on elephants draped in gold, with attendants walking ahead to scatter petals and clear the road, dressed in the finest they owned because the invitation had made unmistakably clear what would be expected of them.

The old exchange of gifts had not been abandoned so much as turned inside of itself, anemone-like. Where a durbar had once seen a sovereign give and receive loyalty in something like balance, here the maharajas came only to receive gifts (silk-lined robes and the jeweled pin of the Order of the Star of India, not to mention colonial favor) courtesy, naturally, of the British East India Company. In exchange, these men were marked as honored, colonially privileged, and unambiguously subject to the whims of the British Crown.

Lytton stood before the assembly, dressed in a manner that one observer found difficult to describe without the word theatrical, and read Victoria’s 1858 proclamation aloud: her “earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer the Government for the benefit of all,” her promise that liberty, equity, and justice would prevail, her offer of clemency to “all offenders” (by whom she meant those who had resisted British rule and fought the Crown during the Uprising of 1857-58). It was read out in English and then in Urdu, so that no one present could plead not to have understood: there was now an Empress. The crowd applauded.

For a fortnight the festivities went on. Through banquets and garden parties, military reviews, fireworks, art exhibitions, sporting events, delicacies arrived on silver trays while musicians played, and all sixty-eight thousand guests were fed to the gills.

Some 1,500 kilometers to the south, in the Madras Presidency, the monsoon had failed for the second year running, and the harvest with it.

Madras, 1877

There was, that year, a wage for staying alive in the Madras Presidency.

To collect it you first had to reach one of the government relief camps, which the administration had sited at a deliberate remove from major cities or towns. The “distance test,” it was called — a filter engineered so that only the genuinely desperate would think the walk worth making. Once you arrived, half-starved and often having carried children the last of the way, you were not fed (this would, of course, be far too lenient and encourage indolence) but set to work. For an entire day, you worked: breaking stone, moving earth, digging the beds of the railways and canals that would carry your land’s grain to the coast and out to the reaches of the British Empire. At the end of the day an officer weighed out your ration (roughly one pound of grain, less for women, children, and the “indigent”) against a figure that had been arrived at, elsewhere, with the blind confidence of a man balancing a ledger.

The figure was the work of Sir Richard Temple, erstwhile Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, who just three years prior had spearheaded one of the most successful handlings of famine during the British Raj. His decision to import some 450,000 tonnes of rice from Burma opened relief on a scale no British administrator had yet attempted, and he successfully brought a massive hunger to its close with almost no casualties. The handling of this famine was, by any humane rubric, a triumph, so naturally, it almost ruined him.

Temple’s colonial superiors saw money spent unnecessarily, and they reminded him loudly and at length. He had been extravagant. He had coddled the poor, taught them to expect rescue, and so bred the very dependency that good governance was meant to discharge.

Luckily for the imperial administrators, Temple was a quick study. When the Government of India sent him south in 1876 to take the famine in Madras in hand, he arrived determined to never again be accused of softness. The ration that came to bear his name, the Temple wage, came to about sixteen hundred calories a day for an adult doing hard labor, fewer than the prisoners of Buchenwald would later receive. Relief too generous would soften the native character. Kinder, in the long run, to keep the dole sparing than to fill the stomach and ruin the man.

Behind Temple’s ledger stood an economic doctrine, and behind the doctrine stood Lytton, who regarded the famine as a matter best left to the discipline of the market. “Absolute non-interference with the operations of private commercial enterprise,” he insisted, “must be the foundation of our present famine policy,” and so, while the camps in the south filled and emptied and filled again, the grain traveled in the opposite direction. In the worst of the famine years, British India shipped a record tonnage of wheat to England. Thousands of grain-laden ships sailed out of a country whose people had been reduced to eating their seed grain, then the bark of trees, then, in the accounts that survive, very nearly nothing at all. The food was there. It had simply been decided, at a level of policy that never had to look any of them in the face, that it was not for them.

That the famine has faces at all we owe in part to W. W. Hooper, an army officer with a photographer’s eye and few scruples about using it. He went into the relief camps and posed the survivors — the ones by then reduced to little more than a framework of bone under skin — arranging them into dehumanising compositions and exposing his plates, engraving the evidence of the deadly consequences of the British Raj. He is said to have come back the following day to find that several of his subjects had died in the interval.

His photographs made their way to Britain and produced a small scandal, a flicker of parliamentary unease of the kind the empire had long since learned to absorb, and they remain among the only likenesses the famine left behind. I’m sure West End ladies felt a twinge of discomfort, perhaps disgust, as they paged through Secunderabad before closing the cover to add more sugar to their tea.

AI Policy

I’m deeply committed to human creation and reject the outsourcing of critical thought and creativity to a machine. You deserve to read words created by a fleshy brain, not e-slop. Each article I post will include a screenshot of the AI-assisted text check, and I am more than happy to discuss any questions or comments about my writing at any time.

Works Cited and More Reading

Codell, Julie. “On the Delhi Coronation Durbars, 1877, 1903, 1911.” BRANCH: Britain, Representation and Nineteenth-Century History, edited by Dino Franco Felluga, branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=julie-codell-on-the-delhi-coronation-durbars-1877-1903-1911.

Cotton, Arthur. The Madras Famine: With Appendix Containing a Letter from Miss Florence Nightingale, and Other Papers. London, 1877. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/MadrasFamineWithAppendix.

Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World. Verso, 2001. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/latevictorianhol00dav_wbr.

“The Delhi Durbar and the Proclamation of Queen Victoria.” Library of Congress Blogs, 2 Nov. 2017, blogs.loc.gov/international-collections/2017/11/the-delhi-durbar-and-the-proclamation-of-queen-victoria.

Digby, William. The Famine Campaign in Southern India, 1876–1878. 2 vols., Longmans, Green, and Co., 1878. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/faminecampaignin01digbuoft.

Hooper, Willoughby Wallace. Photographs of the Madras Famine, 1876–1878. National Army Museum, London, collection.nam.ac.uk.

Prinsep, Valentine Cameron. The Imperial Assemblage Held at Delhi, 1 January 1877. 1877–1880, Royal Collection Trust, RCIN 407181, rct.uk/collection/407181.

Victoria, Queen. “Proclamation by the Queen in Council, to the Princes, Chiefs, and People of India.” 1 Nov. 1858. Read aloud, in English and Urdu, at the Imperial Assemblage, Delhi, 1 Jan. 1877.

Wheeler, J. Talboys. The History of the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi, Held on the 1st January, 1877, to Celebrate the Assumption of the Title of Empress of India by Her Majesty the Queen. London, Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1877. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/dli.csl.6811.

Later, as we turned inland, the small farms once again gave way to massive tracts of cultivated land - rows and rows of commercial crops stretching toward the horizon, their leaves vibrant, almost artificial, against the beige sand lapping the road. At some point, one of our guides scoffed, “We grow strawberries for Europeans, and we can’t even afford bread.” The bitterness of his words lingered. As the road cut west, away from the Nile, the land quickly dissolved into desert.

Egypt has always been defined by extremes. For millennia, more than ninety-five percent of its population has lived within a narrow band along the Nile’s banks, a fertile ribbon slicing through the Sahara. Beyond that strip, thousands of kilometers of arid landscape render about ninety-seven percent of the country’s land unfit for cultivation. The river itself originates from three distinct tributaries: the Atbara and the Blue Nile, descending from the Ethiopian highlands, and the White Nile, flowing north from East Africa’s Lake Nyanza. Their convergence produced the annual inundation that for millennia sustained Egyptian life. Unlike the violent, unpredictable floods of the Tigris and Euphrates that supported Mesopotamian civilizations, the Nile’s cycles were relatively stable, offering a reliable rhythm that enabled a society to flourish continuously for more than five thousand years.

The agricultural calendar of ancient Egypt revolved around this pulse. The season of Akhet, inundation, stretched from July to November, when floodwaters spread across low-lying basins and deposited nutrient-rich silt. Peret, or emergence, followed from November to March, as the waters slowly receded and left moist, fertile soil ready for planting. Finally came Shemu, the dry season from March to June, when harvests were gathered before the next flood. These cycles were not only ecological but cosmological - the god of the Nile, Hapi, was the father of all Egyptian gods and was, although male, depicted with breasts to indicate his capacity to nurture as well as proliferate. The whims of capricious deities were reflected in the unpredictable magnitude of the Nile’s floodwaters, reliable though its flooding was. A major responsibility of the state, entrusted to its pharaohs and priests, was to appease the gods and intercede for the people, in the interest of preventing ruined crops and famine. Renewal, order, and the balance between fertility and aridity were inscribed into the rhythm of cultural and religious practices, maintained through ritual, sacrifice, and labor.

Unlike contemporary Mesopotamian civilizations, the Egyptian state did not manage irrigation works. Rather, agricultural practices were profoundly communal. To harness the Nile’s flood cycles, Egyptians developed a system of basin irrigation as early as the Old Kingdom. Village households shared obligations for clearing canals, maintaining dikes, and managing the floods. Fields were enclosed by earthen dikes and deliberately flooded via directed sluices. Once the soil was saturated, the water was drained, and crops planted.

This method (as long as the floodwaters rose sufficiently high) ensured one reliable harvest each year. Emmer wheat and barley, ground into bread and brewed into beer, respectively, were the twin staples of the ancient Egyptian diet. Lentils, chickpeas, fava beans, onions, leeks, garlic, cucumbers, and dates rounded out daily nutrition, while flax supplied fibers for linen. Domesticated animals - cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs - played a smaller role in the diets of Egyptian peasants, with fish from the Nile supplementing protein intake.

The state, whether pharaonic, Ptolemaic, or later Islamic, organized taxation in kind, oversaw redistribution, and stored grain in granaries for lean years. What resulted was a semi-subsistence, semi-extractive economy: peasants could sustain themselves while also supporting elite households and religious estates.

This Nile-centered rhythm endured long after the decline of the pharaohs, the Ptolemies, the Romans. When the forces of the Rashidun Caliphate conquered Byzantine Egypt in 641 CE, they inherited not just territory but a sophisticated irrigation regime that had withstood millennia of political change. Rather than displacing it, successive dynasties adapted the system to their own frameworks. The basin irrigation system remained the backbone of agriculture well into the Ottoman period, with peasants (fellahin) cultivating wheat, barley, beans, flax, and dates. Under the Fatimids, state officials carefully monitored the Nile’s height with nilometers, like the one still preserved on Rhoda Island in Cairo. A high flood promised abundance, a low one spelled famine, and tax assessments fluctuated accordingly.

Islamic governance also introduced new patterns, the beginning of a slow shift toward economic production demanded by forces beyond the village and the Nile. Agricultural land was often tied to religious endowments, or waqf, which funded mosques and schools. Crops connected to expanding Arab trade networks - sugarcane, rice, indigo, and eventually cotton - gained greater prominence, signaling the early tug of commercial demand. Slowly, the balance began to tip: fields that had once fed families directly were increasingly drawn into cycles of cash crop cultivation that fed distant markets. Yet subsistence farming ultimately remained in the hands of the fellahin, even as they began to shoulder the costs of sustaining imperial economies.

Successive empires leveraged the Nile as a fiscal resource. Mamluk Egypt, which ruled from the thirteenth to early sixteenth century, exported grain from the hinterlands to sustain Cairo and bolster Mediterranean trade, but poor floods could quickly unravel stability. The chronicler al-Maqrizi described the famine of 1403–1406 in harrowing detail, attributing it to a catastrophic Nile failure and denouncing corrupt officials who exacerbated suffering. Ottoman administrators who took over in the sixteenth century managed agriculture through tax-farming, or iltizam, a system that squeezed revenue from the land and left fellahin vulnerable to starvation and destitution. Again and again, the people bore the weight of imperial demands, their labor forced to feed both local households and distant palaces, the rut of extraction and exploitation deepening with each turn of the wheel.

It was in the nineteenth century, under Muhammad Ali and later British domination, that the tenuous balance between sustenance and extraction began to unravel. No longer would the Nile’s waters primarily sustain Egypt’s subsistence farmers; they would be conscripted into a new service, feeding the looms of Europe. Cotton, not wheat, became Egypt’s primary agricultural focus, though the economic benefits of its harvest belonged not to the fellahin who sowed and worked the lands, but to distant mill-owners in Lancashire (a saga of exploited labor unto itself, but I digress). The basin system that had endured for thousands of years was bent into this new shape, irrevocably tying Egypt’s soil and labor to global markets. In the process, a new structure of dependence was laid down, which still constricts the nation: avocado trees fruiting in reclaimed desert while Egyptians struggle to buy subsidized bread and grow crops in salinizing soil.

When I think back to that honey-soaked breakfast in Luxor, or to the words of Abdu scoffing at strawberries bound for Europe, I realize how insistently the present echoes the past. Egypt has always been vulnerable, to the Nile’s rhythms, to foreign powers, to the dictates of trade, but never before has the scale of its exploitation been so vast. From communal basin irrigation to imperial monoculture, from grain surpluses filling temple granaries to fruit shipped to Parisian supermarkets, the logic has shifted from sustenance to profit, and the cost has always fallen on those who tend the fields, who live upon the land that their family has lived upon for centuries.

The Nile has long been both lifeline and liability, a pulse of abundance that rulers across millennia sought to command. To understand the agricultural crises of modern Egypt, its reliance on imported wheat, the cultivation of luxury crops for export, the fragility of affordable bread, we must begin here, with the river that shaped everything. The divine gift, also a reminder that gifts can be seized, redirected, or squandered, depending on who holds power.

Sources and Further Reading:
Brewer, Douglas J., and Donald B. Redford. Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994.

Butler, Alfred J. The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 639–641 A.D. 2nd ed. London: Clarendon Press, 1902; reprinted 1978.

Butzer, Karl W. Early Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Postel, Sandra. Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last? New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.

“Egypt: The Ottomans, 1517–1798.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/Egypt/The-Ottomans-1517-1798.

NASA Earth Observatory. “Foggy Nile.” Image by Wanmei Liang, using MODIS data from NASA EOSDIS LANCE and GIBS/Worldview. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150338/foggy-nile

Subscribe now

Anyone who has known me for more than a few moments knows that I love food. To eat, of course (fewer things are more lovely than a beautiful meal, good wine, good friends), but also to cook, to study, to share.

Anyone who has known me for more than a few moments knows also that I love people. I am an anthropologist in the costume of a mathematician, searching always for the threads that bind us across time and borders, beyond the divisions of imperialism, war, and famine.

In recent months, witnessing the forced starvation of the people of Gaza at the hands of their occupiers has filled me with disgust and grief. To bear witness to the suffering of Palestine and resist the propaganda of genocide perpetrators is to expose the tactics of empire that for too long have been allowed to repeat.

In my first essay series, Hunger at Empire’s Edge, I will explore how food and famine have long been wielded by colonizers as instruments of control, expansion, and erasure. In a world of almost unspeakable excess, modern hunger is not accidental, but engineered to break bodies, minds, and cultures.

Following this series, I plan to continue writing about food: the ways in which it nurtures individuals and communities, preserves culture, and sustains resistance.

Please consider subscribing - all proceeds from my first series will be donated directly to organizations and individuals providing on-the-ground aid to the people of Gaza, who in the face of empire and hunger continue to smile.

Please join me at the table.

Grace