|
| Monumental advances |
| Suparna Bhalla / Mar 06, 2010, 00:22 IST |
|
A lot has been said about the need to conserve the 5,000-odd monuments protected by the state and central governments. A lot is being done by the Archaeological Survey of India, along with agencies such as the World Monuments Fund, UNESCO, Aga Khan Foundation and several NGOs, to create awareness and protect the fast-disappearing heritage.
Whatever be the reason for their present state of neglect, these monuments are essential to our national identity. In this regard, the recent restoration of Humayun’s Tomb, Qutab Minar, the Rathas of Mahabalipuram, the Synagogue in Cochin, the buildings in Kala Ghoda in Mumbai, etc has not gone unnoticed. These projects may have attracted contradictory opinions from conservationists and archaeologists, but what does the common man care about such controversies? The matter of whose garden surrounds Humayun’s Tomb — the original or the one restored by Lord Curzon — is often not the reason a visitor enjoys the space. It is the symmetrical green lawns of the ‘char-bagh’, with its red sandstone water channels, the squirrels that hide behind the hedges, the sprawling banyans and swarms of parrots that make Humayun’s Tomb a destination visitors come back to again and again.
The question is, what is more important — the monument or its setting? Contemporary conservationists would say both. A monument must be connected to the cultural system of the city since it has the potential to inform and reinforce the patterns of civic society, not only through its historical references but also by the land it sits on.
Take the prominent monuments of Delhi, starting with the old cities and the central vista, add a few of the tombs and you arrive at a staggering 2,500 acres of land under these monuments! With the cost of land at an average of Rs 80 crore per acre, this adds up to figures that are best left to imagination. The economics makes it imperative, thus, to evaluate the use of these monuments. While tourists, both local and global, are the primary target audience, can our cultural landscape extend itself into the city as infrastructure rather than as merely ornamental as now?
At Delhi’s Lodi Gardens, the tombs are of less importance to the local community than the gardens; on the beach at Mahabalipuram, the Rathas dot the landscape and yet are not the prime reason for the recreational value of the seafront. The monuments here provide a unique ambience but do not overwhelm the space. Then there is the Taj Mahal. The most visited tourist destination in India is ironically a prime example of a monument whose beauty does not extend itself into either the river or the city that surrounds it.
India’s cultural heritage is priceless. Yet the priority of ‘use’ may overwhelm its physical or historical value. One way out could be to create a series of ‘democratic’ public spaces as an artery to the otherwise fragmented heritage structure. This artery could combine recreation, social and cultural activities and sports to become a platform to promote the sense of community.
We live today in a paradoxical moment when we are seeking our roots as differentiators and are also obsessed with global modernity. In such a scenario, the setting of the monuments, far more than the monuments themselves could act as links between the past and present.
The writer is a Delhi-based architect
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
