The ASI’s ‘modern’ practice of leaving historical buildings untouched is at odds with India’s tradition of restoration
The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach) is engaged in improving the heritage tourism infrastructure of Delhi. One of the strategies it has suggested is to restore some of the lesser known historical buildings protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), such as Jahaz Mahal, a Lodhi period building; and Bahadur Shah Zafar’s palace, a late Mughal building. Both are in ruins and attract few visitors; restoring them could bring these sites into the tourist itinerary. The proposal to restore these buildings has, however, hit a wall because it challenges ASI’s core beliefs.
To restore or not to restore ruined historical buildings has been the litmus test to distinguish ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ conservation practices, at least since the 1880s, when John Ruskin and William Morris forcefully declared that ancient buildings must not be restored. In their Manifesto for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, they argued that restoration would falsify the authentic characteristics of historical buildings and produce fakes. Their reasoning became the hallmark of modern conservation ideology. Subsequently, Unesco’s Venice Charter in 1964 sealed the issue by stating unequivocally that, “conservation ends where conjecture begins”. Thus, ruins are seldom restored because it involves conjecturing what the building may have looked like when it was originally built. Privileging ‘modern’ conservation ideals ensured the obliteration of traditional practices in the West; the question confronting the Indian conservation movement is whether we, too, should follow in their footsteps.
Outdated
Perhaps it is also necessary to ask what the passionate pronouncements of two Englishmen steeped in their own specific cultural milieu have to do with complex cultural conditions prevailing in India. Do we want to blunt this cultural complexity in order to conform to their dictates? This issue needs serious thought not only in the context of Intach’s proposals, but also as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of ASI. This venerable institution began surveying and recording India’s ancient monuments in 1862 and was appointed official guardian of Indian architectural heritage in 1904. This was the time when ‘modern’ conservation ideology was taking root in the West and, not surprisingly, John Marshall, the founding Director General of ASI, incorporated its ideals in his Conservation Guidelines of 1924, still regarded as ASI’s bible. So overpowering is the influence of Marshall’s Guidelines that even today, the professionals working for ASI are unable to look beyond it.
By most accounts, this severely underfunded and understaffed government organisation has done well in conserving the major monuments of our ancient civilisation, but does that record equip it to chart the future in the management of the country’s architectural heritage? Conservation ideology has evolved around the world and subsequent Unesco Charters reflect a culturally more plural attitude towards restoration: the Nara Document on Authenticity, for example, even permits rebuilding in certain circumstances. Arguably, the Indian context provides sufficient evidence of its exceptionalism to justify drafting an Indian Charter for Conservation and ensure the continuity of its unique cultural practices. In fact, Intach produced just such a document in 2004, which has generated genuine debate worldwide with conservation practitioners acknowledging the way it frames the issues at hand and attempts to address them, but the ASI has steadfastly refused to acknowledge it and continues dogmatically to uphold Marshall’s doctrines. One might consider such institutional longevity and ideological fidelity a remarkable quality in these changing times, but unfortunately it has also bred a sense of self-satisfied complacency that has insulated ASI from the world around it, and not least from the changes taking place in the discipline of conservation itself.
An honest appraisal of the question of whether or not to restore historical ruins will force the conservation movement to face the fact that we are heirs to two deep traditions of engaging with this: one introduced by colonialism, which prohibits restoration; and the traditional practices of maintenance, which have existed for centuries, which permit restoration. The Intach Charter attempted to reconcile these by identifying where one would be appropriate and where the other; its rationale underpins the proposal to restore Jahaz Mahal and Bahadur Shah Zafar’s palace. If the ASI wishes to remain intellectually relevant as the premier agency conserving the architectural heritage of the country, it must awaken from its ideological slumber to confront the challenges of Indian praxis.
Heritage of conservation
In India, both historical buildings and historical ways of building need to be conserved. Together, they constitute the architectural heritage of our society. Thus, ancient buildings are not only historical texts whose conservation has to respond to the imperatives of history writing; they are also evidence of historical architecture, whose restoration will advance knowledge of our architectural heritage.
The latter objective has seldom been explored in India and, consequently, the science of building forensics, an important subject of study abroad, remains a neglected area of concern in Indian conservation practice. Intach’s proposal to restore Jahaz Mahal and Bahadur Shah Zafar’s palace includes a consideration of building forensics and offers an opportunity not only to improve tourism infrastructure but also to provide valuable knowledge of our past.
(A.G. Krishna Menon is Convenor, Intach Delhi Chapter)
Keywords: Heritage tourism infrastructure, Delhi historical buildings, restoration efforts, Archaeological Survey of India, Jahaz Mahal, Bahadur Shah Zafar palace
The earlier comment by Seshadri Iyengar is not true. ASI restores temples or mandaps deligently well. It is the HR&CEdepartment of the Tamilnadu Government which has no idea of what heritage restoration is and the break all rules in restoring ancient temples. Itis they who need a wake up call and not ASI. ASI is depleted with less man power and money power. Also on Krishna Menon's article, we have to decide how to restore a living temple and a temple or heritage site which is not used now. Cost also is a criteria to decide if we should restore completely or leave as remains. If the restoration cannot match the original, in terms of aesthetics, material availability and overall strength, then it is better we leave the ruins untouched. They also can live for some more hundred of years!
"Conservation" by ASI in India, especially what they have done, and are doing in our Temples is deplorable. Conservation is not adding crude concrete columns where solid granite, hand-carved columns existed. Conservation is NOT lighting building with floodlights fixed haphazardly without any regard to the eyesore they create by showing steel frames, wiring hanging through the building etc. Recently I found that many a temple in Tamil Nadu have been desecrated by painting over granite designs on the roofs and columns of temples which is complete non-sense. I had hoped that the temple administration would have thought about how bad these painted walls & columns would look before they approved these. You will also notice hundreds of electrical posts so close to temples ruining their view with transformers, loose wires hanging, and many other "distractions" to a holy place. ASI, please wake up. Do what is necessary rather than acting busy.
It is necessary for us to look beyond what John Marshall wrote way back in 1924 and
discuss whether the Unesco charter and Nara document are really useful for India or not.
Intach’s efforts to at least start such a debate are commendable in this regard.
The current conservation practices all over the world are not different in principle than what have been said
in Sir John Marshall's code. No recent International
Charter/Convention accepts outright restoration of Monuments where
there is no clear idea about the original structure and the "modern"
restoration is only conjectural.The ASI has its duty to the public as it is dependent on taxpayers money,its concerns are understandable.
I understand author's frustration of ASI not allowing restoration of building in rubbles and hence not viable to tourism. As convenor Intach he has his views on restoration. The article is more concerned about tourism and not preservation. To justify his view on restoring the buildings to enable tourism and more money he tried to pull in the colonial dictact – one that will always attract the Indian reader (or any reader from any old colonial world).
He said “severely underfunded and understaffed government organisation has done well in conserving the major monuments of our ancient civilisation”. Yes, and why do ASI able to do it – b’coz they stuck to their beliefs. The goal of the people working there was not to make money, but to preserve the past. There was lot of pressure on them from political and business to open tourist complexes – handover these premises to private agencies to run the show. If they have done it they would have made more money than what was suggested by author.
Restoration even if attempted is something one has to be very careful about and considering India's track record at detailed studies, planning and then implementation these monuments are better left untouched unless and until we can come up with some clearly thought out practices and procedures. It’s really sad to see something like Bhoramdeo Temple in Chhattisgarh where cheap bathroom tiles form the flooring of a 12th century temple.
There are so many ancient monuments lying in dust. ASI itself has lost its cult in renewing the heritage buildings. We haven't heard any notable work accomplished by ASI for a long time. Both the factors of underfunding and the law pertaining to renovation are conjoined in halting any such progress.
Please Email the Editor