Spaces & Flows: Ninth International Conference on Urban and ExtraUrban Studies

Abstract

19th century British historians, while glorifying ancient Indian architecture, legitimized Imperialism by portraying a decline. To deny vitality of native architecture, it marginalized labor and situated architects as cognoscenti. Now, following economic liberalization, rural India is witnessing a new hasty urbanization, compliant of Globalization. However, agrarian protests and tribal insurgencies evidence the resistance: evoking concerns of internal neo-colonialism. For native building crafts, Globalization has brought a ‘technological civilizing’. Facing technology that competes to replace rather than supplement, the resistance of labor has remained unheard, and marginalized. Imported techniques supplementing globally manufactured building parts engender a sense of outdated skills, while bemoaning loss of craft traditions, and yet supplying cheap labor for the global north. This research, thus, aligns with the Subaltern studies group, who critique post-colonial theory – a vestige of and hostage to, colonialism. Instead, they prioritize the task of de-colonialization by reclaiming colonial history for the subaltern. Initiating a similar study in architecture, this paper proposes an enquiry anchored on F.S. Growse’s, 1883 book, “Bulandshahr: Sketches of an Indian district.” The book is opportune, for it argued that Indian architecture retained its vitality, especially identifying the agency of labor and thus inviting Imperial wrath. It would relocate the architectural subaltern, not as timidly transitioning or transforming, but in dignified confrontation with colonialism; thus establishing the continued vitality of rural Indian architecture by legitimizing the role of labor. It highlights British administrators facing similar resistance, and questions if a working compromise then established can be a guiding light now.