Cantonment

A cantonment is a military station or encampment serving as quarters for troops, typically temporary during campaigns or as permanent barracks in strategic locations.^[1]^[2] The term derives from the French cantonnement, denoting the assignment of soldiers to specific districts or "cantons" for billeting, a practice formalized in European armies by the mid-18th century.^[3]^[4] Historically, cantonments proliferated under British rule in India, where they functioned as segregated residential zones for European soldiers, often featuring bungalows, barracks, and infrastructure distinct from adjacent civil areas to mitigate health risks like cholera outbreaks and to maintain discipline amid diverse local populations.^[5] The earliest such establishment occurred at Barrackpore near Calcutta in 1765, followed by sites like Danapur and St. Thomas Mount before 1800, evolving into over 60 major cantonments by the late 19th century that supported imperial defense and logistics.^[6] These installations underscored causal factors in colonial administration, including the need for acclimatization of troops to tropical climates and separation from perceived sources of unrest, as evidenced by their role in post-1857 reforms emphasizing fortified, self-contained military townships.^[5] In contemporary usage, cantonments persist in nations like India, where they remain under military oversight for housing personnel and families, though some face redevelopment pressures due to urban expansion; for instance, India's Cantonments Act of 1924 governs their administration, blending military and civic functions while prioritizing operational security.^[6] Defining characteristics include their emphasis on orderly planning—wide roads, green spaces, and amenities—to enhance troop morale and readiness, contrasting with ad hoc field camps.^[7]

Definition and Etymology

Core Definition

A cantonment is a military encampment or station designated for the housing, training, and administration of troops, often featuring barracks, support infrastructure, and segregated residential zones. The term encompasses both temporary quarters, such as winter billets for campaigning armies, and permanent bases, with the latter historically emphasized in colonial contexts for long-term strategic deployment. In general usage, it refers to organized areas where military personnel are quartered away from combat zones to maintain readiness and discipline.^[1]^[2] Particularly in South Asia, cantonments denote permanent military settlements established under British colonial rule, functioning as self-contained enclaves distinct from adjacent civilian areas to facilitate control, hygiene, and separation of European forces from indigenous populations. These were initiated by the East India Company post-1757, with the inaugural cantonment founded in 1765 amid territorial expansions following the Battle of Plassey. Governed by specialized laws like the Cantonments Act of 1924, they integrated military operations with limited civilian amenities, prioritizing defensive logistics over urban integration.^[5] Contemporary cantonments in nations such as India and Pakistan persist as militarized zones under dedicated administrative boards, housing active-duty personnel, families, and ancillary services like schools and markets, while retaining jurisdictional autonomy from local civil authorities. This structure underscores their role in national security, with over 60 such sites in India alone as of recent records, though reforms have debated merging them with municipal governance for efficiency.^[8]

Linguistic Origins

The term "cantonment" entered English in the mid-18th century as a borrowing from French cantonnement, denoting the quartering of troops in assigned districts or the resulting military quarters.^[3]^[4] The earliest recorded use in English appears in 1756, in The Gentleman's Magazine, reflecting its adoption during European military practices involving temporary billeting.^[4] In French, cantonnement derives from the verb cantonner, meaning "to divide into cantons" or specifically "to quarter troops," a usage tied to administrative division of territory for logistical purposes.^[3]^[9] The root canton itself, from Old French (13th century), signifies "corner" or "angle," evolving to denote a district or sector, as troops were housed in segmented areas akin to corners of a larger region.^[10] This spatial connotation traces further to medieval Latin cantus or Italian cantone, ultimately from Proto-Romance forms related to notions of edging or division, emphasizing the tactical allotment of space in military contexts.^[9]^[10] By the late 18th century, "cantonment" in English solidified its military sense, particularly in British usage for semi-permanent encampments, distinguishing it from transient camps while retaining the French-derived implication of quartered districts rather than fixed fortresses.^[11] This linguistic evolution underscores a practical adaptation from administrative partitioning to enduring military infrastructure, without alteration to its core etymological structure.^[3]

Historical Development

Pre-Colonial and Early European Practices

In pre-colonial India, military organization under the Mughal Empire relied on mobile encampments as primary hubs for troop deployment during expeditions, rather than fixed stations. These camps, known as lashkar or imperial retinues, functioned as itinerant capitals, housing tens of thousands including soldiers, administrators, and camp followers, with infrastructure like tents, markets, and command pavilions erected by specialized laborers such as 150-200 carpenters and hundreds of tent-makers ahead of the main force.^[12] For example, Emperor Akbar's advance parties, numbering up to 5,000, prepared sites with red tents reserved for rulers to symbolize authority, emphasizing rapid assembly and disassembly for campaigns across vast territories.^[13] ^[14] Peacetime garrisons were instead maintained in established forts like those at Agra or Delhi, where troops integrated into urban defenses without segregated permanent quarters, reflecting a nomadic cavalry-heavy doctrine suited to feudal levies and seasonal warfare.^[15] Similar practices existed in other pre-colonial contexts, such as sub-Saharan African kingdoms where armies formed semi-permanent camps near water sources during expansions, or in Mesoamerica where Aztec forces used calpulli-based rotational settlements tied to agricultural cycles, prioritizing integration with local resources over isolation. These approaches prioritized logistical flexibility and alliances with local polities, avoiding the resource-intensive permanence that characterized later European models. Early European practices of cantonment emerged from the need to quarter standing armies in peacetime without overburdening treasuries, evolving from medieval feudal levies to structured billeting in the 17th-18th centuries. Originating in French military terminology, "cantonnement" denoted dividing regions into cantons (districts) for assigning regiments to civilian homes or villages, a method used during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) to disperse troops and reduce desertion, though it often led to abuses like plunder and resentment.^[3] By the mid-18th century, this formalized into temporary encampments or assigned quarters, as seen in British forces during the Seven Years' War (1756-1763), where regiments were "cantoned" in rural areas for training and supply efficiency.^[16] In continental Europe, Prussia's 1733 canton system exemplified this by allocating recruits and billeting to geographic cantons, blending militia maintenance with professional forces to sustain army sizes exceeding 80,000 without constant campaigning. These methods laid groundwork for permanent stations by emphasizing hygiene, drill grounds, and separation from civilians to curb disease and indiscipline, influencing colonial adaptations.^[17]

British Colonial Establishment

The British East India Company began establishing cantonments in India following its victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, which expanded its territorial control and necessitated secure, organized military stations for European and sepoy troops. The first cantonment was created at Barrackpore, near Calcutta, in 1765, serving as a model for subsequent permanent bases that replaced temporary encampments.^[18] These installations were strategically located near existing towns or transport routes but deliberately separated to enable rapid deployment against unrest while insulating soldiers from local political influences and potential epidemics prevalent in native settlements.^[8] Establishment accelerated during the late 18th and early 19th centuries amid conquests, such as after the Battle of Buxar in 1764, leading to cantonments at Danapur in Bihar, and further expansions into the Gangetic plain with sites at Meerut (1803) and Agra (1805).^[8] By the 1810s, following campaigns against the Marathas, additional cantonments emerged in Kirkee and Pune (1817) and Jabalpur (1818), designed with grid layouts, barracks, officer bungalows, and controlled markets for camp followers—servants, merchants, and laborers—who supported the army but were subject to strict oversight.^[8] This segregation not only enhanced military discipline by limiting fraternization but also addressed health concerns, as British authorities attributed high troop mortality to diseases like cholera originating from overcrowded Indian bazaars, prompting later sanitary regulations under the Cantonments Act of 1864.^[19] Over time, approximately 56 such cantonments were developed across India to monitor dissent and project power.^[6] In hill stations like Dalhousie (1867) and Lansdowne (1887), cantonments doubled as sanatoriums to combat the tropical climate's toll on European health, featuring elevated sites with European-style infrastructure to foster a sense of imperial normalcy.^[20] Governance fell under military command, with civilian administration minimal and focused on maintaining racial and social hierarchies, ensuring cantonments functioned as self-contained enclaves for colonial defense.^[21]

Post-Colonial Evolution

Following independence in 1947, India inherited approximately 56 British-era cantonments, which were retained as distinct administrative enclaves under the Cantonments Act of 1924, with governance vested in Cantonment Boards comprising military officers and elected civilian representatives.^[5] These boards managed civil functions such as sanitation, water supply, and property taxation within cantonment limits, while the Indian Army maintained control over military zones, reflecting a continuation of colonial dualism adapted to sovereign needs.^[8] By 1962, six additional cantonments were established, including Ajmer, bringing the total to 62, primarily to support expanding defense infrastructure amid post-independence military reorganization.^[6] Post-independence challenges emerged from rapid urbanization and demographic pressures, as civilian populations grew within cantonment peripheries, straining infrastructure and leading to disputes over land use and service delivery; for instance, many boards struggled with outdated colonial-era planning ill-suited to modern civic demands like expanded housing and utilities.^[20] In response, incremental reforms included amendments to the 1924 Act and the Cantonments Act of 2006, which aimed to enhance civilian participation and fiscal autonomy for boards, though military oversight persisted to prioritize security.^[6] A pivotal shift occurred in May 2023, when the Ministry of Defence announced the disbandment of all cantonments' civil areas, converting pure military portions into exclusive stations under Army control and merging civilian enclaves with adjacent municipal corporations to improve welfare services and resolve jurisdictional overlaps.^[22] This process advanced by April 2024, with land from 10 cantonment boards—covering about 7,000 acres—integrated into state local bodies, ostensibly to dismantle lingering colonial segregation while bolstering defense efficiency.^[23] In Pakistan, post-partition cantonments—such as those in Lahore, Rawalpindi, and Peshawar—likewise evolved under the adapted Cantonments Act of 1924, administered by Cantonment Boards reporting to the Ministry of Defence, with a focus on sustaining military readiness amid the new state's security imperatives.^[24] These areas expanded strategically after 1947, incorporating sites like Walton Cantonment near Lahore to house relocated forces and refugees, while boards handled civil amenities under military-dominated governance, often prioritizing cantonment security over broader urban integration.^[25] Over decades, challenges included unchecked real estate development and elite civilian encroachments, prompting ordinances like the Cantonments Ordinance of 2002 to regulate leasing and infrastructure, though enforcement remained inconsistent due to the military's entrenched influence.^[26] Unlike India's recent deconcentration, Pakistan's system has endured with minimal structural overhaul, reinforcing cantonments as semi-autonomous zones integral to national defense architecture.^[24] Across South Asia, post-colonial cantonment evolution has grappled with balancing military exclusivity against civilian aspirations, often perpetuating spatial divides inherited from British segregationist urbanism, though reforms in India signal a broader trend toward hybridization with municipal systems to address inequities in access to development.^[20] In both nations, these adaptations underscore causal tensions between security imperatives and democratic governance, with empirical data on service disparities—such as lower per-capita infrastructure investment in cantonment civilians—driving calls for evidence-based restructuring.^[27]

Functions and Administration

Strategic and Operational Roles

Cantonments function as permanent or semi-permanent military bases strategically positioned to project power, secure frontiers, and facilitate control over key territories. Established by colonial powers like the British in India from the early 19th century, they enabled the rapid mobilization of troops to counter threats, such as invasions or rebellions, by serving as forward operating hubs near borders and trade routes. For instance, the British occupation of Quetta in 1876 transformed it into a garrison town due to its commanding position on potential invasion paths from Afghanistan, underscoring cantonments' role in deterrence and territorial defense.^[28] ^[29] Operationally, cantonments support sustained military readiness through housing, training, and logistical sustainment, allowing units to maintain discipline, health, and equipment in isolated environments away from civilian influences. British authorities in India imposed military oversight on sanitation, hygiene, and security within these enclaves to prevent diseases and unrest, as seen after the 1857 Indian Mutiny when cantonments were fortified as self-contained administrative units housing thousands of troops.^[5] ^[6] This setup enabled efficient operational cycles, including drills, armament storage, and supply distribution, which were critical for launching campaigns, such as those during the Anglo-Afghan Wars.^[8] In broader historical contexts, cantonments preserved force integrity during non-combat periods, such as winter quarters, by providing defensible positions for rest and refit. During the American Revolutionary War, British forces constructed cantonments around New York City in 1776–1777 to shield troops from harsh weather and guerrilla attacks, ensuring operational continuity for subsequent maneuvers.^[30] Similarly, in colonial India, over 60 such stations by the late 19th century acted as nodal points for intelligence gathering and rapid response, linking tactical actions to imperial strategic objectives like border stabilization.^[20]

Governance Mechanisms

Cantonment Boards serve as the primary governance entities for administering civil areas within cantonments, operating as semi-autonomous statutory bodies under the direct control of India's Ministry of Defence rather than state municipal authorities.^[18] These boards are established and regulated by the Cantonments Act, 2006, which replaced earlier legislation such as the Cantonments Act, 1924, to enhance democratization, administrative efficiency, and civilian participation in municipal functions while preserving military oversight.^[31] ^[32] As of 2023, 61 such boards manage designated cantonment areas across India, handling local taxation, sanitation, water supply, road maintenance, and property regulation, but with limited authority over military installations and security matters.^[32] The leadership structure integrates military command with civil expertise: the local military station commander acts as the ex-officio president of the board, ensuring alignment with defence priorities, while a Chief Executive Officer—typically an officer from the Indian Defence Estates Service (IDES) or the Defence Estates Organisation—oversees day-to-day operations.^[32] ^[33] Board composition varies by cantonment size and classification but generally includes elected civilian members (up to eight in larger boards, representing property owners or residents), nominated military officers (around three), ex-officio civil members (such as district officials), and sometimes state government nominees, fostering a hybrid model that balances elected input with appointed expertise.^[34] ^[35] This setup, inherited from colonial precedents, allows boards to levy taxes like house tax and profession tax to fund services, though revenues are supplemented by central government grants, and decisions require approval from higher defence authorities for matters impacting security.^[6] Oversight is provided by the Directorate General Defence Estates (DGDE), an inter-services organization under the Ministry of Defence, which coordinates policy, land management, and compliance across cantonments, as empowered by Entry 3 of the Union List in India's Constitution.^[18] ^[32] Military authorities retain veto power on issues like construction or land use that could compromise operational readiness, creating a dual governance layer where civil boards focus on urban services but defer to the armed forces on strategic concerns.^[36] Recent reforms, including the 2023 denotification of civil enclaves in select cantonments (e.g., merging them with adjacent municipal corporations), aim to streamline administration by transferring non-military areas to state bodies, reducing overlaps and enabling uniform military control over core stations, though full implementation varies by location.^[20] In September 2025, directives emphasized transforming boards into "smart, green, and sustainable" entities with improved transparency and service delivery, reflecting ongoing efforts to address inefficiencies in this hybrid model.^[37]

Infrastructure and Urban Planning

Cantonments are characterized by gridiron layouts with wide avenues designed for military parades and troop movements, a hallmark of British colonial urban planning that prioritized strategic mobility and open spaces over dense development. These plans typically included central parade grounds, regimental barracks clustered by unit, and segregated residential quarters for European officers—often spacious bungalows set amid compounds with verandas for climate adaptation—contrasting sharply with adjacent indigenous settlements. Administrative buildings, hospitals, churches, and markets were positioned for efficient oversight, with infrastructure emphasizing sanitation through covered drains and piped water systems to mitigate tropical diseases, reflecting post-1857 Mutiny reforms that elevated cantonment hygiene standards above those in native towns.^[38]^[39] Post-independence, infrastructure management in Indian cantonments falls under Cantonment Boards, autonomous urban local bodies established via the Cantonments Act, 2006, which oversee municipal functions including roads, drainage, water supply, and waste disposal while integrating military requirements. These boards maintain extensive networks for potable water distribution, sewage treatment plants (STPs), and stormwater drainage, often achieving higher service levels than surrounding municipalities due to dedicated funding from defence estates and property taxes. For instance, boards prioritize resilient infrastructure like underground cabling and elevated water reservoirs to support both resident populations—estimated at over 2 million civilians across 61 cantonments—and operational needs, with recent audits highlighting investments in LED street lighting and solar-powered facilities for energy efficiency.^[32]^[40]^[41] Urban planning in cantonments balances preservation of green belts—comprising up to 60% of land in some cases for training and recreation—with controlled civilian expansion, enforcing zoning to prevent encroachment on defence lands. Challenges include aging colonial-era pipelines prone to leaks and dual governance overlapping with local municipalities, prompting 2023 reforms to delineate civilian enclaves for merger with adjacent urban bodies, thereby unlocking land for mixed-use development while retaining core military infrastructure. Defence Ministry directives target transformation into "smart green ecosystems" by 2035, incorporating IoT-enabled monitoring for traffic and utilities, rainwater harvesting mandates, and biodiversity corridors to enhance sustainability amid urbanization pressures.^[20]^[42]^[43]

Controversies and Reforms

Cantonments in British India, established as insulated military enclaves, were intended to mitigate health risks through planned sanitation and separation from indigenous settlements, yet they frequently experienced outbreaks of epidemic diseases that affected both troops and surrounding populations. Cholera epidemics, originating in the Indian subcontinent, ravaged military stations during the early 19th century, with the 1817–1821 pandemic marking the first global cholera wave and causing high mortality among British forces due to contaminated water and crowded barracks. Malaria and plague also persisted, contributing to elevated death rates; for instance, British troops faced annual cholera mortality rates exceeding those in civilian areas, exacerbated by poor initial drainage systems despite later reforms like the 1860s sanitary commissions. Venereal diseases were rampant, prompting the Cantonment Act of 1864, which institutionalized regulated prostitution with mandatory medical inspections for women in designated brothel areas to curb infections among soldiers, though this measure failed to eliminate transmission rates estimated at over 50 cases per 1,000 troops annually in some stations by the 1880s.^[44]^[45]^[46] Racial segregation formed a core principle of cantonment design, physically dividing European officers and troops from Indian sepoys and civilians to preserve social order and perceived racial superiority, with bungalows and barracks clustered in "civil lines" away from native bazaars. This spatial hierarchy, evident from the 1760s onward in northern Indian stations like those under East India Company control, reinforced discriminatory practices, including separate clubs, markets, and water supplies, which limited intermingling and perpetuated a dual legal system favoring British residents. Such policies, justified by colonial authorities as necessary for discipline and hygiene, systematically excluded Indians from cantonment governance and amenities, fostering resentment; by the mid-19th century, this segregation extended to regulated vice districts for European troops, confining Indian women to inspected lock hospitals while barring local men from equivalent protections.^[47]^[48]^[49] Socially, cantonments disrupted local communities by imposing a militarized economy reliant on Indian labor for menial roles, while eroding traditional land tenure and village structures through land acquisitions that displaced agrarian populations. This created economic dependencies, with bazaars evolving into semi-autonomous enclaves serving military needs, yet under strict surveillance that stifled organic growth and integrated Indian elites only peripherally. Culturally, the influx of Western architecture and norms in these enclaves accelerated the fragmentation of indigenous social fabrics, as British officials promoted European-style education and recreation for a nascent Anglo-Indian class, deepening divides that outlasted colonial rule; critics, including Indian nationalists by the 1920s, highlighted how such isolation bred mutual alienation, contributing to events like the 1857 uprising where cantonment grievances fueled sepoy mutinies.^[20]^[21]^[50]

Land Use Disputes

Land use disputes in cantonments frequently arise from the tension between military requirements for exclusive operational space and civilian pressures for urban expansion, development, and property rights in historically mixed-use areas. Under frameworks like India's Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, land classified for military purposes—such as Class A(1) zones—is restricted to active defense activities, prohibiting commercial or residential encroachments to safeguard strategic integrity.^[51] However, rapid urbanization has led to widespread illegal occupations, with defence authorities reporting approximately 10,249 acres of encroached military land as of February 2025, often involving private individuals, property mafias, and even religious structures.^[52]^[53] These encroachments exacerbate conflicts, as cantonment boards lack authority to legitimize illegal occupants through voter lists or leases, leading to prolonged litigation.^[54] A primary flashpoint involves the excision of civilian enclaves from cantonment boundaries, where disputes center on ownership transfers, taxation, and zoning changes. In India, the government's April 2023 decision to abolish 61 cantonments by segregating non-military civil areas into municipal governance—transferring control of about 18,000 acres—has sparked contention over asset valuation and resident rights, with military stations retaining core defence lands.^[20]^[55] For instance, in Secunderabad Cantonment, eviction drives against encroaching temples and bungalows on B-3 classified lands highlight clashes between cultural claims and defence priorities, with around 120 such properties mired in court cases as of January 2025.^[56]^[57] The Supreme Court of India has expressed alarm over unauthorized private grants of defence land within cantonments, advocating audits to verify titles and curb misuse, underscoring how colonial-era leases often fuel modern ownership battles.^[58] Reforms under the Cantonments Act, 2006, aim to resolve improper land uses, such as quarrying or earth removal deemed hazardous, by empowering chief executive officers to intervene, yet enforcement remains challenged by over 13,000 pending court cases involving defence estates, potentially costing billions in settlements.^[59] In regions like Himachal Pradesh, residents have opposed Ministry of Defence clauses restricting land ownership in transitioning areas, fearing diminished property values and development rights.^[60] Similar patterns emerge elsewhere, such as in Nigeria's Jaji Cantonment, where boundary compromises risk national security through unchecked civilian incursions, illustrating a global pattern where economic incentives clash with military imperatives.^[61] These disputes often reflect deeper issues of outdated colonial land policies failing to adapt to post-independence demographic shifts, prompting calls for streamlined adjudication to prioritize verifiable defence needs over speculative claims.^[62]

Recent Administrative Changes

In May 2023, the Government of India announced plans to abolish all 62 cantonment boards across the country, reclassifying them as military stations to separate military and civilian administration, thereby addressing long-standing land use inefficiencies and colonial-era governance structures.^[22] The process began with the disbandment of the Khas Yol Cantonment Board in Himachal Pradesh in April 2023, marking the first step in denotifying civilian enclaves within cantonments and integrating them into adjacent municipal bodies.^[20] By June 2024, the Ministry of Defence directed the complete abolition of all cantonment boards by the end of 2024, with civilian areas in 13 specified cantonments—such as Dehradun, Jalandhar, and Secunderabad—earmarked for transfer to state governments, granting property rights to residents and enabling urban development under local municipal control.^[63] ^[55] This reform aimed to streamline administration by vesting military land management solely under the Indian Army while resolving disputes over approximately 17,000 acres of contested civil areas.^[55] Implementation progressed slowly into 2025, with a May 2024 reaffirmation of the end-of-year deadline yielding limited advancement by July 2025, as bureaucratic hurdles and state-level coordination delayed full denotification in several locations.^[64] In September 2025, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh highlighted complementary reforms, including amendments to 25 sections of the Cantonments Act, 2006, to enhance civic services, digital accessibility, and institutional capacity prior to full transition.^[65] These changes set targets for carbon-neutral cantonments by 2030 and smart urban ecosystems by 2035, emphasizing sustainable infrastructure, inclusive development, and ease of doing business amid the shift to military stations.^[42] The reforms have unlocked potential for economic utilization of defence lands exceeding 18 lakh acres, though critics note risks to security zoning and service quality in merged civilian zones.^[20]

Global Examples

Cantonments in South Asia

Cantonments in South Asia originated during British colonial rule as segregated military enclaves designed to house European troops away from urban centers, thereby mitigating health risks from tropical diseases and maintaining social separation from indigenous populations. The East India Company established the first such areas after 1757, with formal cantonments appearing by 1765 in India; by the 19th century, they proliferated across the subcontinent to support garrisons amid expanding imperial control.^[5] In present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, these zones evolved post-independence into hybrid military-civilian jurisdictions, retaining large land holdings for defense purposes while accommodating civilian residents under specialized governance distinct from municipal systems. In India, 61 cantonments remain operational as of 2023, administered as urban local bodies by Cantonment Boards under the Ministry of Defence via the Cantonments Act, 2006, which replaced the 1924 legislation to enhance decentralization and civil-military coordination.^[32]^[40] These boards manage infrastructure, sanitation, and taxation for both military personnel and civilians, with examples including Secunderabad Cantonment, founded in 1798 as a British troop base and now governing a mixed population under local self-government provisions.^[66] Historical sites like Kanpur and Jhansi cantonments, developed in the early 19th century, illustrate the gradual formalization of administration, which initially blended military oversight with emerging civil institutions by the 1920s.^[67]^[68] Pakistan inherited numerous British-era cantonments, which transitioned into permanent army bases administered by the Military Lands and Cantonments Department since 1864 under early legislative acts.^[24] Covering extensive acreage—historically including Rawalpindi established in 1851 as a frontier garrison—these areas now support 44 cantonments, blending military facilities with civilian townships and commercial zones like those in Karachi, one of the oldest urbanized examples.^[69] Post-1947, they expanded to house troops and families, with governance emphasizing land allocation for defense amid growing urban pressures. In Bangladesh, cantonments function primarily as army residential quarters and unit headquarters, preserving British legacies such as Dhaka Cantonment, rechristened from earlier East India Company sites and now central to national defense operations.^[70] Sites like Paltan in Dhaka, recast in the colonial period for military use, exemplify the pattern of peripheral segregation that persisted after 1971 independence, with added post-war militarization in regions like the Chittagong Hill Tracts where new facilities were built in the 1970s.^[71] Overall, South Asian cantonments reflect enduring colonial spatial strategies, adapted for sovereign militaries while navigating civilian integration and land disputes in densely populated contexts.

Cantonments in Africa and Elsewhere

In British colonial Africa, cantonments were established as permanent military stations modeled on those in India, serving as segregated quarters for European troops and administrative centers with rudimentary urban governance structures imported from the Indian Cantonments Act of 1864.^[72] These enclaves enforced strict racial and sanitary separations, with European zones featuring planned infrastructure like barracks, bungalows, and drainage systems to mitigate tropical diseases, while indigenous populations were often excluded or relegated to peripheral areas.^[72] By the early 20th century, such setups proliferated in West Africa, including Lokoja in present-day Nigeria around 1900, where the colonial Public Works Department constructed cantonment buildings to house garrisons amid expanding territorial control.^[73] In post-independence Africa, many cantonments evolved into mixed military-civilian zones or affluent residential districts, retaining colonial-era layouts. Ghana's Cantonments in Accra, originally military quarters under British rule on the Gold Coast, transitioned into a modern upscale suburb by the mid-20th century, characterized by tree-lined streets, low-density housing, and proximity to diplomatic enclaves, though military presence persists nearby.^[74] ^[75] In Nigeria, active military cantonments such as Jaji in Kaduna State and Bonny Camp on Lagos' Victoria Island continue to function as secure bases for army units, with historical roots in colonial garrisons dating to 1905, fostering distinct social hierarchies among officers' families that emphasized class-based segregation within these compounds. ^[76] Zimbabwe's defence cantonments, renamed in 2020 under the Mnangagwa administration to honor liberation war figures, illustrate ongoing political repurposing of these sites for national symbolism amid post-colonial military influence.^[77] Beyond Africa, cantonments appear in other former British spheres, often as enduring military-residential hybrids. Singapore and Malaysia host such areas, like Singapore's Tanglin or Malaysia's smaller garrisons, which adapted colonial models for tropical force projection and now integrate with urban development.^[78] In South Africa, cantonments emerged during imperial expansions, evolving into bases like Thaba Tshwane near Pretoria, originally Roberts Heights, which supported Union Defence Force operations and later South African National Defence Force activities.^[78] These non-Asian examples underscore the export of the cantonment system for maintaining imperial order, though local adaptations and decolonization have diversified their roles from purely martial to socio-economic anchors.^[72]