Central Vista and Modern Indic Architecture

 

Sometime after January 15, the construction of the Central Vista is likely to begin. The aim is to hold the Parliament Session in the Central Vista in the 75^th year of our independence. It marks the departure of holding sessions in the current parliament building a product of the colonial times. There is no doubt, that the current building while dilapidated does represent many memorable in the journey to what India is today. In emotional terms, it is not very easy to replace the current parliament building with a new one. Indubitably, there exists a case for growth into modernity of the 21^st century, there exists definitely a strong case for making buildings and by extension the architecture adaptable to the current needs. Yet, there would be traditionalists who would yearn for those days of yore. In a country’s lifetime, there are moments when one moves from the past to the present without necessarily destroying the past but through a careful preservation of the past in building the future. An interesting article by Sanjeev Sanyal appears in the Hindustan Times highlighting the significance of the new Central Vista as India gears to celebrate seventy five years of independence from the British colonial rule. This serves as a good background for understanding why India needs a new architecture for the contemporary.

 

Each era in every society leaves a mark of its own. London itself grew over centuries, the modern London might trace its roots to around 3-4 centuries back, yet the post War London is very different than what was let us say pre-Waterloo. Similarly Paris is a product of changes happening in the last century and half. Singapore, Dubai are among the cities that have emerged in recent years, maybe in the last 3-4 decades. They represent something that identifies with the latter half of the twentieth century. Similarly what we know the architectural structure of California, it heralded maybe in the last century or so especially with the shifting of the entertainment and technology industries to the place. Japan would perhaps be very different if it would not have changed over the centuries. No society thrives on the same identity for centuries or millennia. Architecture represents the identity of the society. It represents the thinking, it manifests the ability of the society to adapt to the contemporary, it envisions the societal thinking of the imaginative. Therefore, when architecture is to be manifested in practical wonders, it demonstrates the society at large of those times.

 

There is no surprise when one is astonished at the architecture that defined the structures in ancient Rome or Greece or Egypt or for that matter centuries before the same in Mohenjadaro or Harrappa. There would be no doubt considerable curiosity over the need to construct these wonders. In today’s times, these might not have served any value, yet they served significant utilitarian values of those times. They represented the thinking and utility of those times. Pyramids might be unthinkable to construct in utilitarian terms of today other than satisfaction of certain Veblen fancies, yet they heralded the understanding of the Egyptian society of the day. Mohenjadaro or Harappa leaves the identity of the society well ahead of its times. There is no doubt, someone is yet to find some significance in terms of utility they served when one observes the monuments of Stonehenge in Britain or those giant statues in remote Easter Island leading to fanciful alien conspiracy theories. Yet this is only because we do not a lot about the past and there is a continuous learning. History is a continuum and so is the architecture with discrete periods of expansionism and long periods of status quo.

 

For the monument that invokes extremes the Taj Mahal does represent the underpinnings of Mughal Raj as much as Qutb Minar representing the symbolism of the early Islamic rule in India. The grandeur of Hampi sadly destructed in post Talikota times represented the nourishment of VIjayanagara kingdom at its glory as does the architecture symbolising the Pallavas or the Cholas. The majestic forts constructed by the Rajputs or later the Marathas does represent the security and strategic thinking of their rulers as embodied in the construction of these forts. In times of the British rule, the Victoria Memorial of Calcutta or Victoria Terminus of Bombay or the Lutyen’s creation of Delhi leaves an inedible identity of British rule. Post-independence, barring few exceptions, the hangover of the colonial times continues throughout. The one exception of Chandigarh on the contrary symbolized the influenced of the legibility on Indian urban landscape. The Marxian influences direct or subtle manifests the lacklustre in the Indian architectural thinking in the post 1947 period. The city might appear orderly but lacks life and culture that would perhaps enliven it for the centuries ahead. Therefore, an Indian version of the modern and the contemporary is something that is need of the day.

 

Indian contribution in terms of style and shape of modern architecture is rather subdued from economics point of view. There is very little what one can term as product differentiation and something that can boost returns. It is not something that gets designed to generate economies of scope. While religious movements like ISKCON or Akshardham might have made some original contributions, they remain exceptions. In government space, Vidhana Soudha might be original yet an exception. India might have emerged as IT hub, something to be boasted off but the buildings what they have created have degenerated into a concrete jungle bereft of utility in the context of the Indian environmental conditions. They have degraded the beauty of their creations through imitating their counterparts in the Silicon Valley. What would be original to Silicon Valley would be imitation when applied in Indian context. The style of architectural creation must represent the environmental context. It is in this scenario that the construction of Central Vista in Delhi represents something of a change. A change that was noticed during the construction of War Memorial must be taken forward. It should not be something imitated from the others. The Central Vista when created must manifest the splendid grandeur of the new creation in building space in the Indian context. It must have an inherent Indian characteristics something that can find itself to be exported to different countries. The success of societies lie in the ability to transform their creative manifestation into commodities of export enhancing their soft power. One hopes Central Vista is a direction towards the same.