Etched

Cultural Implications of Conservation and Restoration of India’s Architectural Heritage

Etched in the vast expanse of India’s culture lies the architectural heritage of a civilization built and transformed continually over the last century. The culture of this diverse nation has been shaped by an amalgamation of religions, languages and traditions pledging alliance to a common spirit. The constant influx of foreign influence largely sculpted her adaptive trajectory as a country with amongst the richest heritage in the world. The Persian domes of Mughal palaces in Delhi, the Portuguese indigo that paints the walls of Goa and the ‘Gopurams’ steeped in what was once Dravidian Karnataka reflect the diversity of the country through its architecture. Over the decades the architectural heritage of India has seen as many transformations as the country itself as conflicts, both physical and cultural, between dynasties and religions led to transformation and often destruction of monuments, palaces and places of worship.

India is nothing short of a treasure trove of experimental opportunity for the occidental world however, as is with most Asian countries, the conservation and restoration of its architecture is subject to several cultural concerns and traditions still observed in the country. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was established by the British in 1861 and has since played a substantial if not primary role in the protection and conservation of the architectural heritage of the country. Even today ASI is directed by the objectives and policies that were outlined by the English archeologist and Director General of ASI, John Marshall.

In conservation of heritage we must consider the material and immaterial; as defined by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage Charter (INTACH);

“The tangible heritage includes historic buildings of all periods, their setting in the historic precincts of cities and their relationships to the natural environment. It also includes significant modern buildings and towns. The intangible heritage includes the extant culture of traditionally building skills and together with the tangible heritage constitutes the ‘living’ heritage.” (INTACH Charter - Guidelines)

As of 2014 through legislation the ASI protects approximately 8500 monuments in the country through Central and State authorities. There is however a plethora of ‘built’ heritage of architectural, historical, archeological and aesthetic importance that is not protected by the Government. Non-profit NGOs such as INTACH are steadily gaining importance in the sphere of conservation in India and have begun to re-evaluate several outdated principles given by Marshall, in keeping with the need for adaptive principles that are more relevant to India and her culture.

The Western idea of authenticity holds material authenticity as an imperative in preserving the integrity of a structure. As UNESCO’s Venice Charter more articulately put it, “conservation ends where conjecture begins.” (ICOMOS, The Venice Charter, 1964)

In other words, to restore ruins of an architectural monument would be to falsely conjure what it would look like. Alternatively the use of modern materials to restructure or repair an existing structure would be to create a fake imitation of an ancient structure. Through much scrutiny though, conservationists across the world came to recognize that the term ‘authenticity’ itself varies across cultures. There are some languages that have no word for authenticity at all. In lieu of this the Nara Document of Authenticity was developed in 1994 that builds on the Venice Charter in bringing in the cultural context of authenticity when considering the restoration and conservation of architectural heritage by relating it to the question of the value of the structure.

“Conservation of cultural heritage in all its forms and historical periods is rooted in the values attributed to the heritage. Knowledge and understanding…, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, is a requisite basis for assessing all aspects of authenticity.” (ICOMOS, The Nara Document of Authenticity, 1994)

The concept of authenticity cannot be a static concept. It must account for an in-depth understanding of cultural values and context. Conservation in itself should not be treated as a static action but something adaptive that considers “living heritage” as much as what has lapsed.

Western ideology of conservation holds minimalist intervention as an imperative to preserving the integrity of structure, allowing for minimal reparation where deemed necessary. A broader understanding of the conservation of heritage has developed today however, that values the traditions and culture associated with structures and monuments and attempts to preserve that. In addition, in the restoration process, there is some significance attached to building practices and traditions previously followed. By imparting such knowledge to restorers by way of which we preserve the traditions associated with the actual erecting of architectural heritage as was done in the past. This constitutes the conservation of “living heritage”, as has been referred to before.

While legislation based on these Western ideologies has long been accepted and implemented on protected heritage structures, there is scope and opportunity to implement indigenous values and practices, use of local materials, traditional techniques and traditional crafts people for unprotected heritage. Much of the unprotected is still in use, often in distinctly different ways than in the past. The conservation of heritage here must account for the adaptive behavior of society and its association with the structure, reiterating the point that architectural heritage conservation cannot be treated as a static concept with fixed criteria, especially at an international level.

Indian culture often expresses an understanding of cyclical perceptions of time, recognizing the concepts of birth, life, death and re-birth. Indian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism speak of ‘karma’ and reincarnation or the concept of ‘samsara’. This cultural perception can be inculcated into the restoration process too- when structures are wholly or in part damaged due to natural calamities or environmental interferences and the prospect of dismantling and reassembling the structure at a more appropriate site- respecting the understanding that buildings too live, die and are re-built.

The controversy that surrounds the idea of restoration of architectural heritage could easily be put to rest when the cultural context is recognized in India. “Mayamatha”, the 6th century Indian treatise of architecture coins the term for restoration, “patisankarana” and articulately allows for the culture of restoration,

“… those temples whose characteristics are still (perceptible) in their principal and secondary elements (are to be restored) with their own materials. If they are lacking in anything or have some similar type of flaw, the sage wishing to restore them must proceed in such a way that they regain their integrity and are pleasantly arranged (anew); this (is to be done) with the dimensions – heights and width – which were their’s… and always in conformity with the initial appearance…” (Wijeysuriya)

The need for restoration of architectural heritage comes from the sources of destruction, other than the inevitable wear and tear of centuries past. Economic, ethnic, religious and political warfare are equally relevant in the destruction of heritage in the India scenario. The threat of religious fundamentalism has plagued countries across the world for centuries. In many cases, destruction of heritage from cultural layers that no longer hold religious precedence prevented even international intervention from restoring the destroyed for lack of community support for the cause. An example of this was seen in Afghanistan in the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhist statues in 2001.

While the secularity of India should pose less threat of such religious extremism the Ayodhya dispute that led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid by Hindu fanatics is a classic example of religious causes of heritage destruction. The Babri Masjid built in 1528 was a monument of living heritage and a place of worship still largely in use by the local community. The conflict surrounding the issue was that the Masjid, built in Ayodhya, the birth place of Lord Rama, had apparently displaced an ancient temple. The Hindus, enjoying political support at that time destroyed the Masjid, demanding the construction of the temple that they claimed once existed.

From an occidental point of view the reconstruction and restoration of the Babri Masjid would be the only way to preserve the cultural and architectural heritage associated with the site, especially in the absence of any recognizable traces of an ancient temple. In such a case the recreation of a Hindi temple with no information regarding even its’ lintel level structure and no evidence of its existence would be completely contrary to the principles of conservation. From a cultural view point however, there is need to recognize the religious and political complexity of the dispute.

Conservation must move away from mere protection and towards adaptive use and re-use of architecture. In a world moving toward homogenized architecture there is a need to preserve the architectural heritage of India by assimilating it into everyday life rather than only maintaining monuments as tourist destinations. Much like what has been achieved in European countries of Rome and Milan, where “piazzas” are maintained as public spaces and “doumos” are still places of worship not cordoned off to public use. The INTACH charter does observe a similar ideology whereby the ‘usefulness’ of architectural heritage is prolonged, awarding priority to retaining original functions wherever feasible. It is an economically and culturally sound approach in the Indian context.

Conservation of heritage is now a field in itself with its own history and theories. In saying this, we distinguish archeologists from conservationists. Rather than the Western scientific understanding of heritage India must consider the anthropological definition of the term as being closely linked to the culture, traditions and beliefs of the local community. It must encompass, as has been stated before, both the tangible and intangible aspects of architectural structure and moreover consider the economic, social and political significance of these structures.

Bibliography

Religions - Hindu Concepts . (2009). Retrieved March 2015, from BBC.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/concepts/concepts_1.shtml

Restore Our Lost Heritage. (2012, January 21). Retrieved March 2015, from The Hindu - Editorial: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/restore-our-lost-heritage/article2817756.ece

Damme, T. V. (2011). The Use and Misuse of History and Archaeology in the Ayodhya Dispute. Retrieved March 2015, from academia.edu: http://www.academia.edu/6042055/The_Use_and_Misuse_of_History_and_Archaeology_in_the_Ayodhya_Dispute

ICOMOS. (1964). International Charter for Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1994). Retrieved March 2015, from ICOMOS.org: http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf

ICOMOS. (1964). The Venice Charter. Retrieved from http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf

ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara Document of Authenticity. Retrieved from http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf

ICOMOS. (1994). The Nara Document of Authenticity (1994). Retrieved March 2015, from ICOMOS.org: http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf

INTACH Charter - Guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2015, from www.intach.org: http://www.intach.org/about-charter-guidelines.php#b1

Luther, A. d. (n.d.). Indian Heritage : Processes to INTACH's Charter. Retrieved March 2015, from academia.edu: http://www.academia.edu/3672237/Indian_Heritage_the_Process_to_INTACHs_Charter

Wijeysuriya, G. (n.d.). Restoring Destroyed Historic Sites. Retrieved March 2015, from http://india-seminar.com/2003/530/530 gamini wijesuriya.htm