Bhubaneswar: Contrasting visions in traditional Indian and modern European architecture

Journal of Urban History

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 164-191

  Kalia, Ravi ^a  

^a CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURE; COLONIALISM; TWENTIETH CENTURY; URBAN HISTORY;

INDIA, ORISSA, BHUBANESWAR CITY;

EID: 0031403644     PISSN: 00961442     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009614429702300202     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Daniel Headrick has observed in his Tentacles of Progress (1988) that colonial natives were discouraged by Europeans to seek technical education. In fact, Europeans found it convenient to believe "that cultural obstacles prevented Asians and Africans from learning to operate Western machinery." Daniel Headrick, Tentacles of Progress (New York, 1988), 382.
2. Daniel Headrick has observed in his Tentacles of Progress (1988) that colonial natives were discouraged by Europeans to seek technical education. In fact, Europeans found it convenient to believe "that cultural obstacles prevented Asians and Africans from learning to operate Western machinery." Daniel Headrick, Tentacles of Progress (New York, 1988), 382.
3. Because the capital city was built next to the Hindu temple town of Bhubaneswar, both Orissa and Indian governments made every effort to emphasize the secular character of the capital to pacify Christian and Muslim minority opposition. And yet, both planners and politicians could not escape the influence of temple architecture in the construction of the capital. For a full discussion of the capital site question, see author's Bhubaneswar: From a Temple Town to a Capital City, (Carbondale, 1995).
4. After independence in 1947, the executive title premier was changed to chief minister, and a province came to be called a state.
5. Premier Harkrushna Mahtab, letter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, July 5, 1949.
6. It is noteworthy here that Nehru expressed the opposite sentiment two years later while laying the foundation stone for Chandigarh: "Let this be a new town symbolic of the freedom of India, unfettered by the traditions of the past... an expression of the nation's faith in the future." Cited in Ravi Kalia's Chandigarh: In Search of an Identity (Carbondale, 1987), 21. On another occasion he noted that the "static condition in regard to architecture in India in the last 200 or 300 years ... really was a reflection of the static condition of the Indian mind or Indian conditions." Chandigarh, 28. And yet in his The Discovery of India published in 1946, he accepted the sympathetic English scholar E. B. Havell's observation that "[i]n India religion is hardly a dogma, but a working hypothesis of human conduct, adapted to different stages of spiritual development and different conditions of life." Havell, cited by Jawaharlal Nehru in his The Discovery of India (New York, 1946), 174. In the same work, he supported Havell "that a great national art [and architecture] affords an intimate revelation of national thought and character, but it is only to be appreciated if the ideals behind it are understood." The Discovery of India, 207. The duality of the man was implicit in his birth and upbringing. There was the romantic Nehru, who found meaning in continuity and tradition; and there was the other Nehru, who was mesmerized by everything modern and scientific and who rebelled against tradition that held people in ignorance and superstition. Moreover, it is very likely that if Nehru sounded more progressive and secular in Chandigarh and more traditional and religious in Bhubaneswar, it is because he was addressing two different audiences. For a full discussion of this point, see Kalia's Chandigarh, 21-31.
7. It is noteworthy here that Nehru expressed the opposite sentiment two years later while laying the foundation stone for Chandigarh: "Let this be a new town symbolic of the freedom of India, unfettered by the traditions of the past... an expression of the nation's faith in the future." Cited in Ravi Kalia's Chandigarh: In Search of an Identity (Carbondale, 1987), 21. On another occasion he noted that the "static condition in regard to architecture in India in the last 200 or 300 years ... really was a reflection of the static condition of the Indian mind or Indian conditions." Chandigarh, 28. And yet in his The Discovery of India published in 1946, he accepted the sympathetic English scholar E. B. Havell's observation that "[i]n India religion is hardly a dogma, but a working hypothesis of human conduct, adapted to different stages of spiritual development and different conditions of life." Havell, cited by Jawaharlal Nehru in his The Discovery of India (New York, 1946), 174. In the same work, he supported Havell "that a great national art [and architecture] affords an intimate revelation of national thought and character, but it is only to be appreciated if the ideals behind it are understood." The Discovery of India, 207. The duality of the man was implicit in his birth and upbringing. There was the romantic Nehru, who found meaning in continuity and tradition; and there was the other Nehru, who was mesmerized by everything modern and scientific and who rebelled against tradition that held people in ignorance and superstition. Moreover, it is very likely that if Nehru sounded more progressive and secular in Chandigarh and more traditional and religious in Bhubaneswar, it is because he was addressing two different audiences. For a full discussion of this point, see Kalia's Chandigarh, 21-31.
8. It is noteworthy here that Nehru expressed the opposite sentiment two years later while laying the foundation stone for Chandigarh: "Let this be a new town symbolic of the freedom of India, unfettered by the traditions of the past... an expression of the nation's faith in the future." Cited in Ravi Kalia's Chandigarh: In Search of an Identity (Carbondale, 1987), 21. On another occasion he noted that the "static condition in regard to architecture in India in the last 200 or 300 years ... really was a reflection of the static condition of the Indian mind or Indian conditions." Chandigarh, 28. And yet in his The Discovery of India published in 1946, he accepted the sympathetic English scholar E. B. Havell's observation that "[i]n India religion is hardly a dogma, but a working hypothesis of human conduct, adapted to different stages of spiritual development and different conditions of life." Havell, cited by Jawaharlal Nehru in his The Discovery of India (New York, 1946), 174. In the same work, he supported Havell "that a great national art [and architecture] affords an intimate revelation of national thought and character, but it is only to be appreciated if the ideals behind it are understood." The Discovery of India, 207. The duality of the man was implicit in his birth and upbringing. There was the romantic Nehru, who found meaning in continuity and tradition; and there was the other Nehru, who was mesmerized by everything modern and scientific and who rebelled against tradition that held people in ignorance and superstition. Moreover, it is very likely that if Nehru sounded more progressive and secular in Chandigarh and more traditional and religious in Bhubaneswar, it is because he was addressing two different audiences. For a full discussion of this point, see Kalia's Chandigarh, 21-31.
9. It is noteworthy here that Nehru expressed the opposite sentiment two years later while laying the foundation stone for Chandigarh: "Let this be a new town symbolic of the freedom of India, unfettered by the traditions of the past... an expression of the nation's faith in the future." Cited in Ravi Kalia's Chandigarh: In Search of an Identity (Carbondale, 1987), 21. On another occasion he noted that the "static condition in regard to architecture in India in the last 200 or 300 years ... really was a reflection of the static condition of the Indian mind or Indian conditions." Chandigarh, 28. And yet in his The Discovery of India published in 1946, he accepted the sympathetic English scholar E. B. Havell's observation that "[i]n India religion is hardly a dogma, but a working hypothesis of human conduct, adapted to different stages of spiritual development and different conditions of life." Havell, cited by Jawaharlal Nehru in his The Discovery of India (New York, 1946), 174. In the same work, he supported Havell "that a great national art [and architecture] affords an intimate revelation of national thought and character, but it is only to be appreciated if the ideals behind it are understood." The Discovery of India, 207. The duality of the man was implicit in his birth and upbringing. There was the romantic Nehru, who found meaning in continuity and tradition; and there was the other Nehru, who was mesmerized by everything modern and scientific and who rebelled against tradition that held people in ignorance and superstition. Moreover, it is very likely that if Nehru sounded more progressive and secular in Chandigarh and more traditional and religious in Bhubaneswar, it is because he was addressing two different audiences. For a full discussion of this point, see Kalia's Chandigarh, 21-31.
10. It is noteworthy here that Nehru expressed the opposite sentiment two years later while laying the foundation stone for Chandigarh: "Let this be a new town symbolic of the freedom of India, unfettered by the traditions of the past... an expression of the nation's faith in the future." Cited in Ravi Kalia's Chandigarh: In Search of an Identity (Carbondale, 1987), 21. On another occasion he noted that the "static condition in regard to architecture in India in the last 200 or 300 years ... really was a reflection of the static condition of the Indian mind or Indian conditions." Chandigarh, 28. And yet in his The Discovery of India published in 1946, he accepted the sympathetic English scholar E. B. Havell's observation that "[i]n India religion is hardly a dogma, but a working hypothesis of human conduct, adapted to different stages of spiritual development and different conditions of life." Havell, cited by Jawaharlal Nehru in his The Discovery of India (New York, 1946), 174. In the same work, he supported Havell "that a great national art [and architecture] affords an intimate revelation of national thought and character, but it is only to be appreciated if the ideals behind it are understood." The Discovery of India, 207. The duality of the man was implicit in his birth and upbringing. There was the romantic Nehru, who found meaning in continuity and tradition; and there was the other Nehru, who was mesmerized by everything modern and scientific and who rebelled against tradition that held people in ignorance and superstition. Moreover, it is very likely that if Nehru sounded more progressive and secular in Chandigarh and more traditional and religious in Bhubaneswar, it is because he was addressing two different audiences. For a full discussion of this point, see Kalia's Chandigarh, 21-31.
11. From Nehru's speech, reported in the Hindustan Standard, Calcutta, April 14, 1948. Also see the Statesman, Calcutta, April 14, 1948.
12. From Nehru's speech, reported in the Hindustan Standard, Calcutta, April 14, 1948. Also see the Statesman, Calcutta, April 14, 1948.
13. David Miller, "Religious Institutions and Political Elites in Bhubaneswar," in Susan Seymour, ed., The Transformation of a Sacred Town: Bhubaneswar, India (Boulder, 1980), 86-7.
14. A. G. Dickens, The German Nation and Martin Luther (New York, 1974).
15. B. Mishra, Secretary to the Governor, telegram, to Secretary R. R. Handa, PWD, August 18, 1948.
16. Koenigsberger, letter to PWD Minister Ranjit Sigh Bariha, January 13, 1949.
17. Unfortunately, Julius Vaz died in the early 1980s, leaving behind no papers or family. He was one of six siblings, of whom only two married. Vaz himself never married. To construct information on Vaz, I have had to rely on his scanty letters, and on an interview with the architect M. P. Kini, who served as assistant to Vaz in Bhubaneswar.
18. Koenigsberger, letter to C. M. Bennett, December 20, 1950.
19. Koenigsberger, letter to Bennett, February 19, 1951. Also see Koenigsberger, letter to Bennett, December 20, 1950.
20. Koenigsberger, letter to Bennett, December 20, 1950.
21. Julius Vaz, "A Note on Bhubaneswar to Chief Engineer," April 2, 1949.
22. Secretary to the Governor, Orissa, letter to Chief Secretary, Orissa, May 30, 1949.
23. Koenigsberger, letter to Bennett, January 3, 1950.
24. Ibid.
25. Koenigsberger, "Bhubaneswar Inspection Report, June 1-5, 1950," New Delhi, September 12, 1950, 2.
26. Ravi Kalia, Chandigarh: In Search of an Identity (Carbondale, 1987).
27. K. Baldeva Mehta, "Planning Legislation in India," (paper presented at the Ninth Annual Town and Country Planning Seminar, Bangalore, India, September 1960).
28. Koenigsberger, "Bhubaneswar Inspection Report, 1950," 8.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Julius Vaz's radio talk on All India Radio, Cuttack, April 13, 1954, published as "Architecture of Bhubaneswar, New Capital, Orissa," in Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects 20 (April-June 1954), 3-4.
32. Ravi Kalia, Chandigarh, 111.
33. Vaz, "Architecture of Bhubaneswar."
34. G.H.R. Tillotson, The Tradition of Indian Architecture (New Haven, 1989), 107.
35. Ravi Kalia, Chandigarh, 105.
36. A. K. Biswal, interview with the author, Bhubaneswar, July 14, 1989.
37. Noteworthy here is Nehru's observation: "A country under foreign domination seeks escape from the present in dreams of a vanished age, and finds consolation in visions of past greatness. That is a foolish and dangerous pastime in which many of us indulge." Nehru, The Discovery of India, 71.
38. G.H.R. Tillotson, The Tradition of India Architecture, 107.
39. For an interesting discussion of this point, see Thomas Metcalf's An Imperial Vision, in which he has argued that colonial architecture, whether public or private, remained "neither English nor Indian." Also see G.H.R. Tillotson, who has argued that in British representations of Indian architecture the picture is a mixed one: "... that some representations ... are indeed colonial in a political sense, but that others are not." "Indian Architecture and the English Vision," in South Asian Studies, vol. 7 (1991), 59-74.
40. For an interesting discussion of this point, see Thomas Metcalf's An Imperial Vision, in which he has argued that colonial architecture, whether public or private, remained "neither English nor Indian." Also see G.H.R. Tillotson, who has argued that in British representations of Indian architecture the picture is a mixed one: "... that some representations ... are indeed colonial in a political sense, but that others are not." "Indian Architecture and the English Vision," in South Asian Studies, vol. 7 (1991), 59-74.
41. Vaz, "Architecture of Bhubaneswar."
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Govt. of Orissa, Orissa District Gazetteers, Pun, Bhubaneswar, August 15, 1977, 721.
48. N. Senapati, "Rumblings on New Towns of Orissa," Journal of the Institute of Town Planners, India 49-50 (December 1966-March 1967), 52-4.
49. G.H.R. Tillotson, The Tradition of Indian Architecture., 136.
50. Malay Chatterjee, cited in Tillotson's The Tradition of Indian Architecture, 137.
51. R. R. Handa and J. Vaz, "New Capital at Bhubaneswar," Marg (Bombay), vol. 8, no. 4 (September 1955), 82-8.
52. Charles Correa, "Transfers and Transformation," in Hasan-Uddin Khan, ed., Charles Correa (New York, 1987), 167.
53. "The Report on Architectural Control Commission Rules," prepared by the Chief Architect's Office, Bhubaneswar, undated, 1.
54. Ibid., 3-5.
55. Ravi Kalia, Chandigarh.
56. A. K. Biswal, interview with the author, Bhubaneswar, July 21, 1987.
57. John A. Hansman, "Planning Yes, Zoning No," Journal of the Institute of Town Planners, India 49-50 (December 1966-March 1967), 89-94.
58. Edward Echeverria, memorandum to Minister of Public Works, Govt. of Orissa, April 2, 1958.
59. Ibid.
60. Peter Grenell, Letter to Koenigsberger, November 23, 1965.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Vaz, "Architecture of Bhubaneswar."
64. Koenigsberger, Master Plan for the New Capital of Orissa at Bhubaneswar (Cuttack, 1960), 27.