After the G20 event was held at Agra Fort on 11 February, cracks developed in the roof of the Diwan-i Aam. Experts speculate that the cracks were caused by loud music from speakers installed inside the 17th-century building. But that hasn’t stopped the Maharashtra government from organizing another event on February 19 at the UNESCO World Heritage Site to commemorate the birth anniversary of Maratha king Shivaji, who felt humiliated in the same building at Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir’s court. In 1666.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had originally denied permission for the Shivaji event, clarified that it was placed away from the damaged portion of the building. But Shivaji’s desire to symbolically avenge himself 357 years after his humiliation has overshadowed concerns about heritage preservation.
not the first time
This has been a perennial problem of Indian heritage conservation. Soon after its birth, independent India embarked on a journey of ‘righting historical wrongs’ when it decided to build a new temple at Somnath in Gujarat, bypassing protests from heritage conservationists and archaeologists, and rebuilding the old temple. Completely destroyed the ruins. By invasions and times, to borrow Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous phrase, “palimpsest past”.
KM Munshi, who was the prime mover of the bid to rebuild the Somnath temple and was supported by Home Minister Sardar Patel, admitted that the proposal to rebuild the temple drew the ire of archaeologists. “In the beginning, some people, who were more fond of dead stones than of living values, insisted that the ruins of the old temple should be retained as an ancient monument. We, however, remained firm in our view. were that the temple Somnath There was no ancient monument; It lived in the spirit of the whole nation and its reconstruction was a national pledge,” wrote Munshi in his 1951 book ‘Somnath: The Shrine Eternal’.
legacy history
It was not the job of the scribe to save history, it was to make history. And he made it very clear when he said that the “conservation of the temple should not be a mere matter of historical curiosity”. He wrote: “Some of my learned friends had harsh things to say about me for my ‘barbarism’. They forgot that I had a passion for history, but still had a passion for constructive values.”
The ASI continued to oppose the move. This resulted in the intervention of Sardar Patel in 1948, when he said (as quoted by Munshi), “…. Hindu sentiment regarding this temple is both strong and widespread. Under the present circumstances, it is unlikely that that sentiment will be satisfied by renovating the temple or prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol will be a matter of respect and sentiment for the Hindu public. As the Dutch anthropologist Pieter van der Heer observed, what was striking in the Somnath episode was the opposition from archaeologists and heritage conservationists to what he described as a “colonial attitude” that had to be overcome as India became independent. . Its rationale derives from the fact that the site was designated an “ancient monument” during the Lord’s Viceroyalty. Curzon (1899-1905) – A surprising inversion of the decolonization argument.
curzon’s forgotten work
Lord Curzon, maligned by Indian nationalists as the man who partitioned Bengal, had a relatively positive contribution to Indian archaeology. He conducted both conservation and restoration work at various Indian monuments, including Crown The palace and fort at Agra, and the Red Fort at Delhi. A plaque on one of Shah Jahan’s buildings in Agra Fort commemorates Curzon’s contribution even today. He strongly attacked the practice of whitewashing and plastering of monuments. The plastering work done in Diwan-i Aam in Agra Fort in 1899 displeased him. The Viceroy was told that plastering was done to maintain the integrity of the stonework which had decayed. Curzon demanded that the repair work be stopped and the building be kept ‘as is where it is’. He was also unhappy to learn that the ceilings of both the Diwan-i Aam and Diwan-i Khas in Delhi’s Red Fort were being repainted, and thought the work was “uniformly poor”.
Curzon outlined his conservation philosophy in Indian archaeology: “Better a destroyed and faded original than a series of modern restorations.” Curzon found some missing tilework behind it Mughal Throne established in Diwan-i Aam of Delhi. It was taken during the loot of 1857. He asked an Italian craftsman to travel to Delhi to make substitutes for the missing panels, as a Venetian craftsman named Austin de Bordeaux had made the originals for Emperor Shah Jahan.
But Curzon’s more lasting influence was the Taj in Delhi and the landscaping of the Mughal gardens at the Red Fort which became a model for all subsequent heritage works in the subcontinent. The Delhi work was done for the Durbar of 1903. When the Durbar of 1911 was organized by Viceroy Lord Hardinge, he had Curzon’s model to follow. Harding wrote in his 1948 memoir, ‘My Indian Years, 1910–1916’, “The Delhi Fort which was a jungle, sparkled with fountains, water channels, green lawns and bushes.” The Durbar of 1911 was quite evident in the royal pomp and grandeur and the focal point was the Mughal Citadel. King George V and Queen Mary made public appearances from the ramparts of the Mughal palace complex, emulating the Jharokha Darshan of earlier Mughal emperors. But it was condemned by Indian nationalists, who were deeply suspicious of British motives.
Rules were made, then flouted
Historian Julie Codell writes that all three Durbars (1877, 1903, 1911) had sharp critics in the Indian press: “The radical Amrita Bazar Patrika described the viceroy’s speech as ‘full of trivialities’. The Bombay Gazette opposed the Durbar because of the exorbitant cost. The Bengali asked, ‘What has Lord Curzon done to revive industries in British India?’ The Hindu Patriot called the 1903 Durbar ‘an extraordinary ruin’ and its exhibition as ‘a symbol of Britain’s power and glory in the East’. The Anglo-Indian Statesman praised the exhibition, then criticized it as ‘a glorified bazaar’ in which ‘the European mind supplies the outline, the measure, the broad character; Oriental ingenuity and imagination are confined to the ornament’, writes Codell in ‘On the Delhi Coronation Durbar, 1877, 1903, 1911’.
In the post-colonial India also, the challenges for the conservation of heritage continued to arise. In 1997, the famous musician i.e organized a concert with the Taj Mahal as the backdrop, which drew opposition from environmentalists and heritage conservationists, who argued that the loud music could affect the 17th-century mausoleum and that the bright lights could attract insects whose excrement This can lead to erosion of its marble. The concert went ahead as planned with the help of the court, but insects were found in the tomb the next morning, confirming the fears of conservationists. As a result, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions for the noise and light levels around the monument. But not much lesson was learned as the UP government locked horns with the ASI a few years later to light up the Taj for the ‘Taj Mahotsav’ festival.
The recent incident at Agra Fort only shows why protecting heritage in India is an uphill battle.
The author is a journalist and pursuing PhD in History at the University of British Columbia, Canada.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which had originally denied permission for the Shivaji event, clarified that it was placed away from the damaged portion of the building. But Shivaji’s desire to symbolically avenge himself 357 years after his humiliation has overshadowed concerns about heritage preservation.
not the first time
This has been a perennial problem of Indian heritage conservation. Soon after its birth, independent India embarked on a journey of ‘righting historical wrongs’ when it decided to build a new temple at Somnath in Gujarat, bypassing protests from heritage conservationists and archaeologists, and rebuilding the old temple. Completely destroyed the ruins. By invasions and times, to borrow Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous phrase, “palimpsest past”.
KM Munshi, who was the prime mover of the bid to rebuild the Somnath temple and was supported by Home Minister Sardar Patel, admitted that the proposal to rebuild the temple drew the ire of archaeologists. “In the beginning, some people, who were more fond of dead stones than of living values, insisted that the ruins of the old temple should be retained as an ancient monument. We, however, remained firm in our view. were that the temple Somnath There was no ancient monument; It lived in the spirit of the whole nation and its reconstruction was a national pledge,” wrote Munshi in his 1951 book ‘Somnath: The Shrine Eternal’.
legacy history
It was not the job of the scribe to save history, it was to make history. And he made it very clear when he said that the “conservation of the temple should not be a mere matter of historical curiosity”. He wrote: “Some of my learned friends had harsh things to say about me for my ‘barbarism’. They forgot that I had a passion for history, but still had a passion for constructive values.”
The ASI continued to oppose the move. This resulted in the intervention of Sardar Patel in 1948, when he said (as quoted by Munshi), “…. Hindu sentiment regarding this temple is both strong and widespread. Under the present circumstances, it is unlikely that that sentiment will be satisfied by renovating the temple or prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol will be a matter of respect and sentiment for the Hindu public. As the Dutch anthropologist Pieter van der Heer observed, what was striking in the Somnath episode was the opposition from archaeologists and heritage conservationists to what he described as a “colonial attitude” that had to be overcome as India became independent. . Its rationale derives from the fact that the site was designated an “ancient monument” during the Lord’s Viceroyalty. Curzon (1899-1905) – A surprising inversion of the decolonization argument.
curzon’s forgotten work
Lord Curzon, maligned by Indian nationalists as the man who partitioned Bengal, had a relatively positive contribution to Indian archaeology. He conducted both conservation and restoration work at various Indian monuments, including Crown The palace and fort at Agra, and the Red Fort at Delhi. A plaque on one of Shah Jahan’s buildings in Agra Fort commemorates Curzon’s contribution even today. He strongly attacked the practice of whitewashing and plastering of monuments. The plastering work done in Diwan-i Aam in Agra Fort in 1899 displeased him. The Viceroy was told that plastering was done to maintain the integrity of the stonework which had decayed. Curzon demanded that the repair work be stopped and the building be kept ‘as is where it is’. He was also unhappy to learn that the ceilings of both the Diwan-i Aam and Diwan-i Khas in Delhi’s Red Fort were being repainted, and thought the work was “uniformly poor”.
Curzon outlined his conservation philosophy in Indian archaeology: “Better a destroyed and faded original than a series of modern restorations.” Curzon found some missing tilework behind it Mughal Throne established in Diwan-i Aam of Delhi. It was taken during the loot of 1857. He asked an Italian craftsman to travel to Delhi to make substitutes for the missing panels, as a Venetian craftsman named Austin de Bordeaux had made the originals for Emperor Shah Jahan.
But Curzon’s more lasting influence was the Taj in Delhi and the landscaping of the Mughal gardens at the Red Fort which became a model for all subsequent heritage works in the subcontinent. The Delhi work was done for the Durbar of 1903. When the Durbar of 1911 was organized by Viceroy Lord Hardinge, he had Curzon’s model to follow. Harding wrote in his 1948 memoir, ‘My Indian Years, 1910–1916’, “The Delhi Fort which was a jungle, sparkled with fountains, water channels, green lawns and bushes.” The Durbar of 1911 was quite evident in the royal pomp and grandeur and the focal point was the Mughal Citadel. King George V and Queen Mary made public appearances from the ramparts of the Mughal palace complex, emulating the Jharokha Darshan of earlier Mughal emperors. But it was condemned by Indian nationalists, who were deeply suspicious of British motives.
Rules were made, then flouted
Historian Julie Codell writes that all three Durbars (1877, 1903, 1911) had sharp critics in the Indian press: “The radical Amrita Bazar Patrika described the viceroy’s speech as ‘full of trivialities’. The Bombay Gazette opposed the Durbar because of the exorbitant cost. The Bengali asked, ‘What has Lord Curzon done to revive industries in British India?’ The Hindu Patriot called the 1903 Durbar ‘an extraordinary ruin’ and its exhibition as ‘a symbol of Britain’s power and glory in the East’. The Anglo-Indian Statesman praised the exhibition, then criticized it as ‘a glorified bazaar’ in which ‘the European mind supplies the outline, the measure, the broad character; Oriental ingenuity and imagination are confined to the ornament’, writes Codell in ‘On the Delhi Coronation Durbar, 1877, 1903, 1911’.
In the post-colonial India also, the challenges for the conservation of heritage continued to arise. In 1997, the famous musician i.e organized a concert with the Taj Mahal as the backdrop, which drew opposition from environmentalists and heritage conservationists, who argued that the loud music could affect the 17th-century mausoleum and that the bright lights could attract insects whose excrement This can lead to erosion of its marble. The concert went ahead as planned with the help of the court, but insects were found in the tomb the next morning, confirming the fears of conservationists. As a result, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions for the noise and light levels around the monument. But not much lesson was learned as the UP government locked horns with the ASI a few years later to light up the Taj for the ‘Taj Mahotsav’ festival.
The recent incident at Agra Fort only shows why protecting heritage in India is an uphill battle.
The author is a journalist and pursuing PhD in History at the University of British Columbia, Canada.