‘Colonial Buildings’ Rhetoric Could Snowball Into Talk of ‘Muslim, Hindu Era’, Fear Architects

Union housing and urban affairs minister Hardeep Singh Puri’s statement on the Central Vista revamp – in the course of which he asked, “Who said we are going to destroy the parliament building” – has done little to assuage the worries of prominent architects and planners regarding the project.

Puri had notably added that the heritage zone was a reflection of the “colonial ethos that the country [had been] subjected to”. That, and his insistence that some of the structures that came up in the 1960s and 1970s “should have been torn down many years earlier” has left many concerned.

The convener of the Delhi chapter of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), A.G.K. Menon, said that Puri’s reference to the area as a reminder of the colonial era was a “provocative statement”.

Also read: Leading Architects Concerned About Central Vista Revamp Plan for New Delhi

“Today you are saying colonial era, next you will say Hindu era, then Muslim era; why use these terms? People like you will create the divisions, you will create the problems. It is history and whether history should be preserved or not preserved is the issue. Once you start dividing it that way, we get into problems,” he added.

Menon said he was suspicious and worried because of Puri’s use of the word ‘colonial’. “Because obviously they will say it is from the colonial era and the British ruled us, so it should be destroyed,” he added.

Where are the guidelines?

The real question, Menon said, is: “Where are the guidelines?”

He added that the bid document also states that the government is intent upon conserving heritage, but asked how it plans on going about it. “The adherence to these guidelines is discretionary. Where are the objective guidelines? You don’t ask the bidder to tell you what the guidelines are. But the approach here is, ‘I am the client, I want someone to tell me what to do and how to do it’,” he said.

The concerns raised by architects, he added, can only be answered by following the procedure laid down for work in heritage areas. “They are just treating it like any other part of the city. For works in other parts of the city at least the bye-laws are written but where are the guidelines for taking up this project? They would have provided a bottomline the government would not have crossed,” he added.

Menon gave the example of a hypothetical situation of a new secretariat. “What if it is proposed that it should be 40 storeys high, do the guidelines say you cannot do it? Will it still remain the Central Vista with a 40-storey building next to it?”

‘Build a new New Delhi if you want different architecture’

Another prominent architect, Raj Rewal, who designed the Hall of Nations at Pragati Maidan and the Parliament House Library building, reacted to Puri’s statement as well.

“If the government of India feels that they need to have another kind of architecture then rather than demolish whatever is there they should find another zone in Delhi where they can go ahead with a certain kind of architecture which is very different or which is very modern and which meets their requirements. They should go about finding a new zone in Delhi for the compatible architecture of our times, rather than start demolishing.”

Also read: Lutyens’ Delhi Set to Undergo Massive Changes As Part of Govt’s Revamp Move

He said there was a parallel for similar development in the city of Paris. “They have made what is called the Paris Parallel, a new Paris at La Defense. So they could do whatever they wanted there without demolishing the old parts of Paris,” he stressed, adding that “history is history and it should be kept.”

‘Structures among the best designed’

To Puri’s comment on structures of the 1960s and 70s needing to be pulled down, noted curator and photographer Ram Rahman commented by putting up pictures of Rail Bhawan and Vayu Bhawan on his Facebook post.

He wrote alongside that that these two buildings built between 1960 and 1965 were designed by M.S. Gill. Rahman also added a quote from his father, the renowned architect Habib Rahman, who said in unpublished interview to Malay Chatterjee: “These two Bhawan’s are the only Central Vista structures which have some contextual merit. Gill was a sensitive sardar, whose health and concentration declined after an accident. He was locally trained.”

Rahman, his son, added in his post, “These are solidly built buildings with no need to tear them down. They can easily be upgraded inside, Mr Puri…shift your new buildings to Daulatabad…Let us wallow in Lutyens Delhi and Khan Market, thank you.”

Old concerns

Earlier too, these three architects and planners had shared their concerns around the Central Vista project with The Wire.

Menon had stated that the bid document did not spell out the significance of Central Vista. Rahman had expressed fear that as Prime Minister Narendra Modi wanted to “leave a massive mark through this project”, it could lead to drastic changes in the Central Vista area.

Rewal had urged that the external façade of the buildings in Central Vista be protected at all cost.

Three alarms

Menon had in a statement put out by INTACH further explained the “cause of alarm,” saying there were three major reasons behind it.

Also read: Of Icons and Iconoclasts: Saving Delhi’s Modern Heritage

“First, it violates the protocols of best practices for any interventions in heritage areas. The Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) and the Central Vista are widely admired worldwide and more specifically the Master Plan of Delhi has designated them as Heritage Zones to be protected. The bid document states that the bidder shall adhere to the ‘guidelines’ of the LBZ and the Central Vista Committee (CVC), but what are these ‘guidelines’?”

He also stated that, “International protocols dictate that all interventions in a heritage area must be preceded by a State of Conservation or a Heritage Impact Assessment Report (HIA). Such reports define the parameters within which development should take place. In the absence of a HIA, the bid condition that the consultant will follow the “guidelines” of LBZ or CVC rings hollow.”

Then, Menon questioned the “unprecedented haste in implementing the project”. “The bid document states that the government wants to build a legacy for the next 150 years, but the timeline proposed to complete the project does not support this objective,” he added.

The third concern, he said, relates to the financial terms set to identify potential bidders. Here, he questioned why bids were invited despite the Council of Architecture prohibiting these. Also he claimed the best architects and planners in India have been ruled out as the earnest deposit money has been kept prohibitively high at Rs 50 lakhs.

He lamented the absence of “wider public and professional consultation” saying these would have “yielded more satisfactory results and avoided the predictable pitfalls built into the present bid document”.

Also read: Why the Future of the Building Industry Is Circular

Puri’s words

However, Puri sidestepped all these issues in his statement. He, in fact, attacked the constructions of the past and spoke about the need to bring down certain structures and how in the 1960s and 70s “either we lowered our standards or we took our eye off the ball”. The remedy, he said, was that “70% of India of 2030 has to be rebuilt.”

Puri was further quoted as saying that when it came to the buildings built by the British: “I am not going to say anything good or bad. I’m saying that colonial ethos in terms of [British] architecture was a very positive reflection in many ways, but it reflected the technology and the understanding of what the environment was in that period… if you go to Pretoria (South Africa), they have buildings that are almost identical to North and South block. It was the prevailing ethos.”

Ostensibly justifying the haste, he said it was Modi’s dream to redesign the heart of Delhi. “Our government district should be second to none. It should stand out.”