Special issue with the Sunday Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU

URBAN SPACES : August 1, 1999

---

Rethinking architecture

A. G. Krishna Menon

The author is Director, TVB School of Habitat Studies, Delhi.

With the attainment of Independence, the idea of a unified and homogenous "nation" became an ineluctable reality, and manifested itself in many forms of artistic expression, not least in the field of architecture. The imperative to modernise, the urgency to "catch-up", of course, reinforced this idea. The use of the English language too, is complicit in the collusion of a modern artistic expression and the idea of the newly-independent Nation-State. Thus, it became common to refer to "Indian Architecture", and "Indian Art", "Indian Music" and "Indian Culture", when, in fact, one was referring to an astonishing variety of architecture, art, music and culture within a political entity called India.

Pankaj Sekhsaria/ Fotomedia

We can now see these identity constructions for what they were, and continue to be: semiotic packages reflecting aspirations to find continuity with an idealised past and a bridge to an idealised future. The problem with such packaging is not that it reflects aspirations, but that it is reductive: it "canonises" selectively and simplifies a complex reality of architecture-in-the-making. These idealisations are being contested in several academic disciplines, but, surprisingly, not in architecture, where in fact, the issue of identity is central to the process of form-making and place-making.

Architects in the country innocently traipse through the minefield of cultural representation, oblivious to the contentious issues inherent in the positions they take. When they aspire to achieve "Indianness" in their works, they seldom pause to consider the ontological significance of the quest; when they reject it, their position still bristles with their indifference to the urgent ideological and philosophical issues of contemporary cultural formations. We can see in this conundrum the enduring legacy of colonialism because what was once the colonial imperative remains unchanged in the ways we think contemporary architecture.

Amar Talwar/ Fotomedia
Taj Mahal Hotel, old and new buildings, Mumbai.

The problem inherent in the construction of pan-Indian themes of "Indian Architecture", both past and present, is the elision of many regional narratives that unfolded, and continue to unfold in this diverse country. These constructions are Orientalist exercises, defined by and for, a foreign - "other" - constituency. To contest such predispositions, the "regional" needs to be critically examined by architects in India, in the manner that it has been examined in other disciplines by scholars. In literature, for example, recent scholarship has conducted thoughtful discussions on nationalist deployments of an "Indian past" needing to assert antiquity, authenticity, and an unruptured continuity of "Indian" culture. Such a discussion in the field of architecture may have an equally salutary effect on thinking architecture and architects' propensity to pursue Orientalist agendas in their works.

Vinay Aditya
Jali patterns, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

Such redressal is long overdue, though it must be recognised that an exclusive ethnocentric or regional perspective is no substitute for the Orientalist framework. There are no simple, straightforward positions available in a complex, "webbed" world. Nor is this complexity addressed in the gratuitous definitions of "Indian Architecture". What is necessary for architects is to view their past and their present as being continuously mediated in diverse ways by the many regional, national and global forces of contemporary development.

The fact is, that myriad narratives of architectural development have unfolded during the past fifty years. The unifying matrix of "Indian Architecture" does not do justice to this reality and, in addition, precludes the possibility of seeing tradition as constantly in the making, as strenuously contested and redefined by different communities. It also runs the danger of distorting facts, by either investing a regional architecture with characteristics it does not possess or excluding more interpenetrative cultural formations. Neither culture nor architecture are co-terminus with a national identity - they only share the same political space. Fifty years after Independence, architects in India need to absorb this insight, both in thinking architecture, and in their practice.

V. Muthuraman/ Wilderfile
Rameshwaram Temple corridor.

What is the "local context" for an architect working in India? Are the colonnades of Tamil Nadu temples of equal significance to the intersecting squares of Fatehpur Sikri or the figure-ground characteristic of Jaisalmer in the design of buildings anywhere in the country? How does one establish ownership of heritage and the choice of models one employs to generate form in contemporary architecture?

Considering the fact that we cannot erase our colonial past, can we claim access to historic European models as well? Architects have never felt compelled to examine these questions. One of the intriguing questions that confronts us when we critically examine the architecture of the last fifty years, is: why were architects unable to achieve a transformative architecture when its potential existed at the time of Independence? Was the problem one of interest or acumen?

Hashmat Singh/ Fotomedia
Ladakh housing.

After Independence, there were two schools of thought - the Revivalist and the Modernist, both supported by much passionate rhetoric. But the rhetoric was mere sloganeering because Independence was constituted of the transfer of political power, not revolution. Architects had no cause to rebel and, consequently, no ideological grounds on which to seek architectural transformation - of the Revivalist or Modernist variety. Having always collaborated with the colonial project, architects were unable to critically examine its legacy upon achieving Swaraj. The rhetoric of establishing continuity with the past was, under the circumstances, merely self-flagellation; obviously, only Revivalism was achieved. But what about the "Modernists"?

Shashi Shetye

It was much more natural for the Modernists to proceed from an unquestioned colonial legacy and attempt to produce an appropriate modern architecture for a newly independent nation. Nevertheless, the continued significance of a modernism imposed by the coloniser was never addressed and consequently they merely discovered other, more appearing models to adopt after Independence, often as a result of their training in the West. Thus, in critical terms, the pertinence of applying the "Harvard", or "MIT" or "Liverpool" brand of modernism to the situation at hand was never in question in the minds of the foreign-educated messiahs: they knew the solutions before they returned to India to examine the problem. Thus, the Modernists too, fared no better. We must therefore, question why architects are unable to establish a disciplinary identity, when practitioners in other disciplines can?

V. Muthuraman/ Wilderfile
Dakshineswar Kali Temple, Calcutta.

To begin with, the largely colonial methods and devices employed by architects to accomplish their tasks isolate them from the regional mainstream of cultural dialogue. Architects working in their metier in contemporary India certainly do not have the same relationship with their clients that contemporary regional language writers have with their readers. Even cross-regional art forms like classical music and dance are able to address a large cultivated audience to sustain their art; contemporary architects, on the other hand, do not have a similar constituency with whom they can engage in discussions on issues of common concern. A constituency must be developed by disseminating information and it is here that "writing architecture" becomes critical to the process of cultural formation. While there are music critics, theatre critics, dance critics and literary critics, there are no architectural critics. Even the media - print and electronic, studiously ignore developments in the field of architecture, except to highlight catastrophes or urban problems: this feeds the propensity to valorise the past - the "good old days". These are not conditions in which "good" contemporary architecture can develop, let alone thrive.

Sudhir Kasliwal/ Fotomedia

In the meantime, problems have exacerbated, and become more urgent. Globalisation, the ecological crisis and deprivation of all kinds are the new concerns which have been added to earlier ones concerning post-colonial identity. This may still translate into the search for "Indian/Regional/Local" architectural identity, but it will now need to take into account the paradigm shift characterising the conditions prevalent today. This shift will necessitate rethinking architecture - whom we work for, where we work, and why we work as architects. In this regard I can think of few opportunities to address these issues that can match the potentials inherent in the pursuit of architectural and urban conservation in India. Urban conservation forces the architect to confront the here and now and mediate the urgent needs for development on the one hand, with the imperatives of conservation, on the other. It offers an opportunity to evolve site-specific solutions and interrogate the "National" search for "Indian identity", while simultaneously addressing issues arising out of the global/ national contexts.

Siddharth Mitra

While opportunities exist, they are seldom taken. The emerging trends in this nascent disciplinary area is leading to the "museumification" of our architectural heritage. Conservationists are seeking alignment with western practices rather than addressing specific local imperatives. The creative potential offered through taking a contrary, and in my opinion, an appropriate stand, both for the production of "Indian architecture" and the conservation of our unique cultural heritage, is ignored in our attempt to "catch-up" with western practices.

Amit Bhargava/ Fotomedia

Unless architects polemecise these ideological conundrums into a critical culture of resistance to the forces of universalisation implicit in the desire to "catch-up" with the West, there is little hope for either the conservation of the architectural heritage or the development of a diverse range of architectural cultures in our country. A critical reading of the contemporary architecture of India inevitably leads us to understand why we must work towards establishing a stronger link between the two imperatives.