The Delhi government’s decision to rename the Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC) as Indraprastha Virasat Redevelopment Corporation is an exercise in symbolic reclamation. By invoking Indraprastha, the legendary capital of the Pandavas described in the epic Mahabharata, renaming is the move that seeks to anchor Delhi’s contemporary identity in an ancient civilizational past.
Few would dispute the government’s prerogative to rename institutions. Yet, the move raises a fundamental question, especially among those who would want to propagate the ancient legacy. Does the legacy of Indraprastha meaningfully correspond to the geography of Shahjahanabad, or does this renaming risk fusing distinct historical layers?
The answer lies in examining both history and geography with some care. The identification of Indraprastha has long been debated. Archaeological excavations at Purana Qila have revealed ‘Painted Grey Ware’ culture remains, often associated with the later Vedic period, leading scholars to link the site with the Pandava capital. Same scholars, however, point that the textual descriptions in the Mahabharata do not point to a compact, walled city resembling later medieval urban centres.
Instead, Indraprastha appears as part of a broader territorial grant, a developed region along the Yamuna that the Pandavas transformed into their capital. In fact a village named Inderpat existed till the early part of last century close to Purana Qila. The village cleared during the British construction of New Delhi (around 1911–1930).
Traditional interpretations further reinforce this understanding. The oft-cited reference to five settlements, Panipat, Sonipat, Baghpat, Maripat and Tilapat, which Pandavas received from Kauravas, suggests that Indraprastha, given its geographical location close to the Purana Qila site on the banks of Yamuna, was their main administration centre.
This geography also corresponds broadly to the present-day National Capital Region (NCR), stretching from Panipat in the north to areas near Tilapat in the south, and across the Yamuna into Baghpat. To the east lay Hastinapur, the Kauravas capital, while the battlefield of Kurukshetra lay further north of Panipat, forming a coherent cultural-geographical zone associated with the epic.
Seen in this light, Indraprastha was less a bounded city and more a regional centre of power, a riverine civilisation anchored along the Yamuna. This makes its identification with the precincts of Shahjahanabad historically tenuous.
In contrast, Shahjahanabad is a precisely documented urban entity, established in the 17th century by the Mughal emperor Shahjahan. Its built environment, from the Red Fort to Jama Masjid and the dense network of bazaars, represents a distinct phase in Delhi’s long and layered history. Shahjahanabad is not merely a geographical space, it is a living archive of Mughal urbanism and Indo-Islamic architecture.
Renaming an institution after Indraprastha is less a historical correction and more a symbolic overlay—something governments worldwide often do to reflect present priorities. Yet Indraprastha’s cultural significance deserves deeper recognition.
The Mahabharata-linked heritage circuit remains underdeveloped, with focus largely on Kurukshetra, while other sites have evolved into industrial and transport corridors along the historic Grand Trunk Road.
If the intent behind invoking Indraprastha is to honour civilizational heritage, then a more substantive approach would be to develop a coherent “Mahabharata circuit” across this broader geography linking archaeological sites, traditional locations, and cultural narratives. Such an initiative would not only align better with historical and textual evidence but also unlock tourism and educational potential.
By contrast, renaming a redevelopment corporation does little to address the pressing challenges facing the walled city itself, which continues to grapple with congestion, encroachments, crumbling infrastructure and the steady erosion of its built heritage. Conservation here demands sustained investment, regulatory clarity, and community participation.
The issue is not whether Indraprastha should be remembered but how should it be remembered. Indraprastha belongs to a wider cultural landscape that extends far beyond Old Delhi.