A Timeless Traditional Architecture: Modernizing Traditionality the Indian Way

The term ‘Modern’ has been quite debatable in the case of architecture. Jon Lang sums up Modernism to be “an attitude. An attitude is composed of a belief and a value. A modernist is someone who believes that there are better ways of doing things.” (2002, p2).

This quote nails the intent of modernism as a representation, rather than to be exhibited merely as a style, like it is perceived today. The reason for this gap in intent and perception is mainly because of the way architecture itself has been practised. Like Its response to similar conditions, the architectural fraternity clasped modernity the same way it did with other ‘styles’ of architecture. Conceived by Gropius and other modernists as a ‘timeless’ process - with principles like truthfulness in structural expression, rational organisation of space with respect to function and circulation, and technological innovation and experimentation - modernism was an approach to respond to the various conditions of the context in which a building was about to be built. Nonetheless, it is now read within a time frame. The Modern movement spread across physical and temporal boundaries because of the flexibility it offered across cultures - the constants were broad and the variables mouldable.

Indian culture was never too rigid, which is one of the reasons that it is so diverse and yet can stay as one. In thinking, India always seemed to acknowledge the present, but again, the country was called ‘traditional’ because of its rootedness in culture and customs. The country added its tinge of flavour to modern architecture as well. Lang beautifully puts it as:

“The modern Indian movement represented a bold and radical departure from the mainstream of contemporary architectural thinking both in India and the world. Revivalist in presentation but often progressive in spirit, the architecture represents the belief that the past can give order to the present and be a source of identity and pride for the people who see it as a part of their culture” (2002, p26).

Laurie Baker said that he learns “…architecture by watching what ordinary people do; in any case it’s always the cheapest and simplest” (Cruickshank, 1987). Here, we see a key principle

of ‘modernity’ coinciding with the traditional rural practices. Another aspect is the rise of climatology as a part of thinking in modernity. Climate was important when trying to make “Indian architecture” because the country is widespread with a combination of the tropical, humid and arid zones. Thereby, though the idea of modern architecture floats around the nation, it is impossible to place all architecture within the modern genre under a single umbrella term.

India looked up to modernism, as the newly independent country was thriving for an identity free from the past. The then-Prime-Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, a rationalist, paved the way for it by commissioning Chandigarh to Le Corbusier. However, these ‘new temples’ - iconic towns, large dams and factories - of modern India (Scriver &Srivatsava, 2015) were ‘handmade’, using traditional knowledge and skill in a “still largely pre-industrial society” (Scriver &Srivatsava, 2015, p8). Then again, India had been engaged with modernism much earlier. From the Golconde House (1935-1948) in Pondicherry, which often hailed as the first modernist building in India, Indian modern architecture has positioned itself in a search for critical regionalism. Though in its materiality and appearance Golconde reflects universalism, the planning was based on the climatological aspects, orienting it to ensure maximum air flow and minimum heat gain in the hot humid location. Following Chandigarh however, “Corbusian modernism was unquestioningly adopt-ed for more than two decades” Gast, 2007, p9). During the mid-20th century, the on-going debates between the virtues of tradition and the race for establishing identity through nation-building, questioned modernity itself.

The late 20th century saw a return to “regionalism and historicism” with modernist practitioners like Raj Rewal, Charles Correa and B V Doshi attempting to reconcile architecture with traditional elements like “ragas and mandalas” (Scriver &Srivatsava, 2015, p21)[1]. Among the lesser discussed buildings “that is rooted in tradition yet demonstrably contemporary” (Cruickshank, 1987) is the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research in Mumbai by Uttam Jain. The section of the building through the auditorium reminds one of the Nagara temples, with the movement of the visitor guided through the well-lit mandapas (lobby and research cubicles) towards the dark yet auspicious garbha-girha (the auditorium).2 While using local materials and labour for building, the truthfulness in structural, material and technological expression is unquestionably Modern. In evoking a sense of contextuality of the nearby Hindu and Jain cave structures through the vaulted ceiling and collonaded corridors, Uttam Jain “[created] a building that is not only locally apposite, ...but also of ‘national significance’ with an ‘image that reflects’ all India” (Cruickshank, 1987).

NHL medical college (1975) in Ahmedabad, designed by Suryakant Patel, is a representation of the marriage between traditional principles and technology. Although on its elevation, the building exhibits the principles of modern architecture, especially Bauhaus - with the clean façade and grooves that reflect the structural members – the plan is rooted in a traditional spatial approach - with a cluster of four typical modules enclosing a courtyard. The climatic demands of the region is further incorporated through the cavity wall and the depth of the wall acts as the shading device for the windows fixed towards the inner section. The column-grid structure with windows placed evenly horizontally, enabled flexibility of interior space, to be used as required by the users. The toilets and other services juts out of the main structure as separate blocks, connected to the main structure by a corridor. Separation of these services from the building allows upgradation of these services without altering the main structure. Specifically, the NHL was built using sound techniques and precise decisions before construction that enhanced the efficiency of traditional methods. With a modernist approach, traditional practices become more refined with efficient use of materials and reduction of errors during construction.

Such “contextually specific ‘local’ modernities” (Scriver & Srivatsava, 2015, p11) still continue to mark their presence in the contemporary practices in India. The concepts of modernising traditionality have taken the foreground in the design development of Sanjay Puri, Sanjay Mohe, Neelam Manjunath and several architects practicing in various regions of the country. All of the above mentioned architects believe and propagate buildings that represent its context. Neelam Manjunath is the ambassador of bamboo buildings and her concepts are formed around the five elements of nature, ecology and sustainability. Her House of Five Elements a bold expression of technology weaved into the local material palette and traditional spatial organisation.

Modernity is a term to explain this very nature of a man’s evolution. Throughout history man has tried ways to make his work more efficient with successive attempts, this shift towards efficiency is the pursuit of the modern. For example, matchstick is the modern version of the stone - it is easy to carry, is smaller in size and ignites at first friction. In both cases the end result is the flame and the principle is friction. The endeavour of modernists was not to presume architecture with yet another rigid element but to create an approach to make the built environment more efficient. The understanding of the whole process delved into adapting and accepting new ways. When compared to the traditional methods of building, it may seem like a deviation from the ‘authentic’, but that comes from the tendency to romanticize the contradictions between modernism and traditionality. When we realise that modern architecture is not a disengage from the past, but a lens that could enhance it, we will recognise that we do not have to do away with traditions to embrace modernity, rather, traditionality can be modernised.

Endnotes

This essay is one of the shortlisted entries for the IDHA Architecture Essay Competition 2020, co-authored by myself, Athulya Ann Aby and Fiona Evangeline.

[1] “The idea of rasa in architecture may be interpreted as an insertion of a singular and unique quality in experiential aesthetics, which is in conformity with and adds to the function and purpose of the building. The intention is to make architecture not only functional but also responsive to the visual and tactile senses in a way that conforms to the function of the building” (Gast, 2007, p11). A mandala is a geometrical representation of the world in Hindu mythology.

[2] In a Hindu temple, the ‘mandapa’ is a porch-like colonnaded structure near the entrance. The ‘garbha-griha’ is the sanctum sanctorum of the temple, where the deity is kept.

References

Cruickshank, D. (1987, August 12). Variations and Traditions: the search for a modern Indian architecture. The Architectural Review, p. 50-59.

Gast, K.-P. (2007). Modern Traditions: Contemporary Architecture in India. Germany: Birkhauser.

Lang, J. (2002). A Concise History of Modern Architecture in India. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.

Scriver, P. & Srivastava, A. (2015). India - Modern architectures in history. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.