Introduction
India is a land of multicultural and multilayered society, a heterogeneous mix of identity, class, religious beliefs and customs, layered by a history of more than two thousand years. Pluralistic in its approach, it tried to adapt from the various foreign influences and then make them part of its own. Therefore, it becomes truly difficult to choose representatives of Indian Architecture.
But, if we look back, before the British invasion, Architecture in India was a direct consequence of religion and culture – beliefs and rituals. It was only after the British colonization that, they started to build major administrative and judicial buildings in state capitals. It is important at this point to understand the whole concept of having administrative centres is foreign in its nature.
Also important is the fact that when the British ruled over India for 200 years, there was a radical change in the architectural expression. This was due to two important factors: the invasion of British who unlike their predecessor failed to mingle with the society they ruled. And the industrial revolution, which completely changed the lifestyles of the people all around the world. The "disassociativity" of the British was clearly reflected in their architecture too. As now for the fist time, ‘’The Indian’’ was relegated to just outer faces, the arches, the brackets, the domes, and not in planning and its essence. And this suddenly detached our dwellings of their Indian spirit and caused the disconjunction in understanding the true Indian architecture.
Post-Independence India as a nation was more focused in projecting a modern image to the world, taking on from where the British left. This was probably the most difficult time for Architecture in India as she was torn between the twin pressures of traditional belief systems and the simultaneous desire for modernization. Thus came a spate of buildings in the Government Sector which promoted this view.
Building Research
One of the early examples of Government buildings is the Vikas Minar. The building was an adaptation of the International Style, a cubical tower showing off its thick R.C.C slabs and columns, with floor to ceiling height windows as infill. The building, even though of technological value at the time does not respond to its climate or its context. The ambience is very formal and mechanical. This is also true with the Department of Delhi Archives, where the only attempt at climatic response is the recessed windows that do not allow direct sunlight to enter the building. Other than that, the building is extremely utilitarian, with thick horizontal bands, giving it a box like character.
Punjab Bhavan designed by Jeet Malhotra in 1979, responds climatically, owing to its orientation, recessed windows, and its central movement court. The built mass distributed in levels and the jaali patterned parapets are the associations with the past that make the building look Indian. Another example is The Central Administrative Tribunal which has a courtyard planning, with offices arranged around a central space, thus there is ample sunlight and ventilation. The recessed windows do not allow direct sunlight to enter during summer months. The stepped profile built mass, has a stone cladding of beige coloured sandstone and jaali patterns in parapets. Its response to climate, the choice of material finish, and the ambience of the central courtyard makes the building Indian.
The Central Revenue Building looks Indian at its very sight. The ornamental chhatris, decorative entrance with imposing columns and arches, use of red Agra stone makes the building look Indian. But I felt that despite all of this, the building could not capture the essence of Indian Architecture. Another such building is the ISI building. The composition of the building makes it look Indian. The huge entrance gate, ornamental ionic columns, arches, and the slight jharokha as visual elements do make the building look Indian, but the basic order is missing from this composition. The formal box like arrangement of windows and the thick red bands around them, make the building seem more like pastiche, than an attempt to make an Indian building.
On the contrary, the building of the Office of the Income Tax Department, even though does not boast of any articulation, seems Indian. The climatic considerations and the treatment of the facades in terms of orientation, use of vertical and horizontal sunshades on the west side while only chhajjas on the east wall, and controlled openings on the south wall. Also the treatment of windows has broken down the visual solid mass and made it more interesting, an abstraction of the Indian jharokhas. The building raised on stilts; gives a semi-open space in front of the building entrance, which has evolved as a meeting point for people. It is probably because of this ambience that the building seems Indian.
Krishi bhavan and Rail Bhavan, were built with the complex of the Central Secretariat. Since these buildings are rooted in their immediate context, they look and also feel Indian. Although they are built in the International style, a composition of modern planning incorporating Indian elements of articulation such as arches, chhatris, domes, columns etc.
Observations
After studying the buildings and trying to identify the Indianness in them, it may be said, that post independence, certain styles can be identified as a function of time. From the period between 1947 to about 1980, buildings were functional and box like in character with little consideration for response to climate and context. After 1980, buildings were built to consciously make a building Indian, by contextual response, climatic response, historic and cultural associations etc.
The most recurring feature so observed was that, that most buildings in the Government Sector were not Indian essentially. They were mostly assimilation of various elements from the past. For whatever was seen as Indian was only in terms of “Associations”.
The discussions now:
- Can pastiche be considered Indian?
- When and where can we draw a line while analyzing a building for Indianness, to determine what is a conscious decision vis-à-vis an accidental response or a necessary response
- Can Indian be read only off the façade or is it something inherent? Can it be defined?
- In view of the modern technology and our preconceived notions of Indian/Traditional Architecture, can any building constructed in today’s time be called Indian?
- Is Indianness only looking back to the history? Should it not be progressive?
- The question is – what makes the building Indian, the facadal reference to India or the essence of the building.
This discussion about the Search for Indianness in the Architecture of India can be taken further and researched at length under the following:
- We are choosing ‘representatives’ of Indian architecture, but the question of “what to represent” is probably the one that needs to be answered. Does it have any relation to the ‘image’?
- Are we looking to identify the Indian in architecture, or are we after the meaning that seems to have been lost in architecture as a whole?
- Can Indian Architecture be identified only in the vocabulary of associations? Should it not be progressive in nature?
(A paper on 'Indianness' submitted as part of the Seminar Courcework in the 7th Semester of B.Arch. 2003-'08)
