Arrest of Change.

This is rewritten old article. About eighteen years old!! Amazingly, could well have been written today!!

ARREST OF CHANGE & OUR ABILITY FOR STATUS QUO

                                          THE UNCHANGING URBAN SPACE

THE CITY HEART

Obvious exclamations to the phenomenal growth  in Indian cities is, on closer scrutiny, a response to the fringal change in their size. So while this proclamation of growth is heralded as the product of our urbanization efforts, the result is a quagmire of city parts, juxtaposed with unsolved problems of their growth.

The resultant growth, with their own problem of identity, character & architecture, is a subject question of our urbanization principles. The concern here is that this tremendous effort at growth has not changed the Indian city, beyond the marvel & measure of the city size. (Take a walk along most of Lutyen’s New Delhi & it is as if the British left yesterday!)

The new growth of parts has refused to coherently come together,  to be identified with the city and have left the onus of city identity and character on the older parts which has resulted in their qualifying for the popular `city heart’ idea. That these hearts in themselves contain important urban institutions like museums, galleries, cultural zones, market places etc., furthen their position in the resulting new city pattern.

THE UNCHANGING PATTERN

The new pattern is open to scrutiny, and change is to be understood as distinct from growth - change is to be accompanied by an altered nature, function and character of the subject. With such qualifications for change, the city hearts (referred by many as city proper!) are, at best, an unchanging pattern. The whole of Lutyen’s Delhi, is as if in a time wrap of a bygone era - an archaic idea of a different socio-political system - while burdened with its new position in the overall pattern.

STATUS QUO

There exists a status quo - `Leave it as is’ blanket policy. That it has not helped in positive continuation of urban areas is best exemplified in the squalor that has engulfed Shahajahanabad (Old Delhi). Lutyen’s Delhi continues to look functioning at the cost of vast underutilization of a tremendous potential, while the fringes of urban growth squirm under pressure.

That the status quo approach is a negation of the historic process of development, is to be understood. International  examples of continual re-building and re-shaping have happened in spaces like piazza San Marcos, Della Signoria etc.., And more lately, urban reorganization of an inner city area in Paris to Park la Villette highlight the need to continually change city parts for dynamic incorporation of contemporary needs.

That the Indian traditional space is a result of continual change and reorganization is an accepted principle, and is fortified by many examples of temple cities, religious centers etc.

So the status quo in urban areas is a recent idea in city development process - aided much with uncontextualised western ideas on conservation.

If the status quo process was restricted to city development, one would have attempted to write it off as an exigency of the economics of growth. But questionable is the pervasive mentality in all spheres of socio, cultural and political activity. So we have unchanged judicial laws that pre-date this century and editorial sentiments against a more contemporary rendering of the title `Vande Matram’ - that it can now be sung by a lot more people, notwithstanding. Obsolence seems to be an issue not to be debated and is preserved in the shield of continuity. But such continuity is unsuitable for contemporary scenarios.

NEED FOR CHANGE

Reverting back to status quo in our built environment, it is noticed that it has resulted in the non-assimilation of  the past and the present. Take for example, the central vista or the Kingsway (now called Rajpath) in front of Viceroy’s Palace (now called Rashtrapati Bhawan) culminating in the India Gate precinct (now called August Kranti udyan). This imperialistic vision, aptly designed to symbolise the dominance of the  power structure existing then has virtually remained unchanged in the new democratic structure. While it is accepted that the architectural splendour of this great urban space is a firm case of care and conservation, but that its highly altered role in the contemporary city has failed to influence the conception seems more a matter of status quo controversy. From a ceremonial route symbolising the relationship between the Viceroy on one side and the Indian princes on the other, the space is now functioning as an Indian maidan catering to public rendezvous, political gatherings and recreation. The architecture of yesterday have become monuments of today, but the quality of space is all a result of chance, than of acceptance of this new role of the maidan (symbolic efforts by changing names notwithstanding). What is of concern are the controversies generated each time the development bodies initiate a change in this space. These controversies if accepted as public opinion and psyche, somehow all gather to blanket preservation of the area - against the hypothesis of continually adapting and reforming urban spaces.

So are we, as a society, scared of change - or more so - of our ability to control change? There seems to be a lack of optimism to produce change for a better scenario. If there is fear of our own capabilities, or the lack of them, then we must investigate the agents responsible for change. If the bodies responsible for development, strategies and opinion are defunct of ideas, then there is no dearth of professional talent, already rearing to contribute.

If this seems like a daunting task, it has not to be seen as a weakness, but an optimist strength that has to be generated, against which the constraints of development will be offset. Status quo will never rid the need for change, as Lutyen’s himself said  “ We cannot get rid of the body of tradition, murder it how we may. ”