Politics, History, and Architecture.
A critical case of the Central Vista Redevelopment Project
“Architecture is always Political.”
- Richard Rogers.
This is one of the most famous statements in the architectural discourse suggesting the independent binaries of politics and architecture. The political scenario of the place — be it the by-laws, the ruling government’s actions, and the political conflicts — directly affects the built environment. In contrast, the built environment could lead to a series of political reactions, more often than not anticipated by the architect, yet the architectural container affects politics over time. Thus, politics shape architecture, and architecture shapes political responses.
The Central Vista Redevelopment Project in India’s power corridor Delhi has recently become a prime example of this binary.
Initially, the British Raj’s throne, the Central Vista’s Development, was initiated during 1911 by Architect Edward Lutyen (who built Delhi) and Herbert Baker. However, some of the structures were incrementally developed over time along this linear path in Post-Independence India, and today it holds the narrative of India’s growth from a colony to a 72-year old democracy.
The current Central Vista consists of the buildings of political importance like Rashtrapati Bhavan, Parliament House, North Block, South Block, Vice-president’s house and the central secretariat and other institutions like national museum, National Archives of India, Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, Udhyog Bhavan, Bikaner House, Hyderabad House, Nirman Bhavan, Jawahar Bhawan among a few.
A redevelopment competition was floated by the Govt. of India in September ’19, inviting architectural and urban design practices to submit their design proposals. The new plan, the tender states, will represent “values and aspirations of a New India — Good Governance, Efficiency, Transparency, Accountability and Equity and is rooted in the Indian Culture and social milieu.”
Led by Dr. Bimal Patel, an Ahmedabad based firm, HCP won the tender in October ’19. The new master plan envisages constructing a new triangular parliament building intended to seat 900 MPs in the Lok Sabha, a joint sitting for both the houses of Parliament, revamping the 3-km-long Rajpath — from Vijay Chowk to India Gate. A new prime minister’s office and residence (which was never a part of the tender floated by the CPWD and has only been suggested by the winning firm) will be located at the end of the existing south block. The redevelopment plan has the current north block, south block, and the existing parliament buildings converted into museums.
The project has gained a lot of media attention for the amount of resistance it has already received, all for different reasons. To begin with, the necessity of the project has not been established with any credible prior studies on administrative, heritage, environmental and technical parameters, despite getting clearances for construction from the authorities.
This firm’s master plan suggests the razing of several existing structures and rebuilding some new ones. Those to be torn down would also include structures accorded Grade -1 heritage status under the extant Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, meaning that these structures are of national importance and have architectural excellence. Another aspect of grave concern is the environmental impact of the 83-acre redevelopment, where no environmental audit has been undertaken by either the government body or the design practice. This will result in thousands of trees being cut off, which will undoubtedly affect the already degrading weather and air quality of Delhi.
During his presentation, the architect has argued that this project will elevate the architectural infrastructure of our country as the Central Vista is the cradle of India’s sovereign power.
“As we go around making this major change, we will try to do it in a way that it is not a rupture with the past. What we are trying to do is to respect the history, perhaps even strengthen the original intent by using architecture to strengthen the original diagram… There’s nothing we are doing that doesn’t say, listen, this is exactly what (Sir Edwin) Lutyens would have done.”
However, this project and the suggested alterations come with grave social, historical, and economic implications.
Memory plays an essential role in the trajectory of a country’s history and more so for its architecture. Jeff Malpas argues that —
‘there is no place without memory, no memory without place, and, since there is no architecture without place, neither is there architecture that is not engaged with memory.’
Architecture also symbolizes a point of reference in time — a proscenium against which experience can be recalled as architecture is one of the longer constants in the measure of time. For instance, we usually associate the republic and Independence Day parade to the Central Vista, whereas the existing parliament building holds the memory of Nehru’s speech when India achieved Independence.
Construction and redesign on the scale planned in the redevelopment project will significantly affect this precinct’s heritage aspect, greatly alter the historical narrative of its built environment with over a 100-year history and most probably destroy it irrevocably. The ‘new’ structures and spaces of the redevelopment project will bear no history and embody no collective memory. They will not speak to us of battles lost by the colonial power and won by the freedom struggle, citizen’s demonstrations and protest movements against government policies, political fasts, celebrations, family picnics, and memories on the lawns of the Central Vista.
Najaf Haider, professor of History at JNU, says, “The history of modern India has always been of a dynasty building a new city. I see this project as the present government establishing its own regime.”
Apart from the irrevocable effect on the built environment, this project is a blatant display of power and top-down planning, where no parliamentary debate or discussion preceded any of the decisions taken. Moreover, the redevelopment plans have not been substantiated by any meaningful public consultation or expert review. In fact, there has been no explicit exhibition of the scheme drawings, data, or preceding studies for domain experts or common man to understand what exactly is planned in this public space of great historical and heritage value. The project concerns all the tax-paying citizens of the country. This will result in a significant part of our history to be demolished and replaced. The new construction will symbolize only the overweening desire for the personal glory of an authoritarian ruling class.
By one of the most esteemed Urban Design practices, this proposal makes one want to question the value of heritage and history in the country? Is Spatial reordering the right way ‘to respect the past’ for that is what ‘modernist’ Dr. Patel argues his tabula rasa scheme aims to achieve?
It cannot be denied that a developing country needs an appropriate infrastructure that is representative of its growth. There sure could be a need to refurbish the power corridor of India. However, the economic implications of this project cannot be ignored.
Between the Central Vista Redevelopment initiation and now, the country’s economic situation has completely altered. In 2020, the world was hit by a pandemic, and it saw India’s Public health infrastructure cripple under its weight. There was a mass displacement of the migrant workers and the unemployment rate soared as high as 23.52% in April, which is now at 9.6%, along with the riots and the farmer’s protests. The estimated cost of the Central Vista project is 20,000 Crore Indian rupees. The question worth pondering over is whether Nation-building (or whatever the agents of power aim to achieve) more important than the people and the elaborate history? Should it be done at the cost of the other?
A building is many things: a stylistic statement, a form shaped to its function, and a reflection of its era. In this scenario, the Central Vista corridor is a political statement and a symbol of the government’s misplaced priorities. Dr. Patel claims that there is a similarity between the past and the proposed project. According to me, this similarity is limited to how the former architects, Lutyens and Baker, had to flatten the hill to achieve a flat empty plot of land. Dr. Patel’s means seem likewise.
Eminent professional bodies such as the Council of Architecture, Indian Institute of Architects, INTACH, Institute of Urban Designers India, and the Indian Society of Landscape Architects have written numerous letters with sound and detailed advice on various aspects of the redesign plan to the minister of housing and urban affairs. Unfortunately, these letters have been ignored.
A former Army and IAS officer writes-
“Looking at it from every dimension, the poser of a CPWD architect fits the Central Vista Project superbly — Could it be that the entire project is a self-serving, vanity project akin to those undertaken by medieval emperors rather than modern democratic leaders? The project appears to create even greater distance between the head of the government and the people through the clever use of architectural design. The question to ask is whether the PM will next plan Diwan-e-Aam like gatherings outside his new residence.”
With many petitions issued against the project, the supreme court issued a stay order for any kind of construction or demotion of the existing structures. However, a groundbreaking ceremony for the new parliament building by Prime Minister Modi on 10 December 2020 made the Central Vista project a political tug of war where everyone most certainly knows which end is most likely to win. It is worth noting how this new building’s narrative, which may or may not be built, is already tainted with strands of extreme power and its misplaced use, expressed through the means of architecture.
The title of this piece- ‘Politics, History, and Architecture’ is again an interdependent binary, I could not decide whether to call it —
The political history of architecture,
The history of political architecture,
or
The architecture of political history.
Although these mean different things, they are all valid and can be observed in the Central Vista Redevelopment Project that — with its planning, design decisions, government’s opacity, and inability to hear the mass — is more likely to be a representation of a hegemonic fascism rather than the sovereign.
