WHY CHANDIGARH DESERVES TO BE SAVED

INDEPENDENT India saw three new state capitals built in the past fifty years: Chandigarh for Punjab, Bhubaneswar for Orissa and Gandhinagar for Gujarat. Of the three, Chandigarh is the most visible and has attracted worldwide attention. Not because it happened to be the first one, but because it was built at a delicate juncture: India had won Independence but the Partition of the country led to the largest ever migration of people the world had ever seen. Given those uncertain days, the idea of developing a brand new state capital for a battered Punjab was an act of profound courage; its leaders were facing extraordinarily difficult circumstances, yet they dared to look forward. The venture of building a new city at that point of time was an act of faith in the country and its people. It exuded confidence in a new India emerging, as it were, from the burdens of the past.

Free India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru wished Chandigarh to be "a symbol of new India unfettered by the traditions of the past". In quintessence, planning of a new city and seeing it developed as originally conceived, furnishes its creator-designers a rare opportunity to see their dreams being translated into reality. It gives them an extraordinary opportunity to re-form and re-structure a society (or, at least a small part of it) in accordance with their hearts’ desire and shared ideals for the future. Because at the core of a new city is a moral and social commitment embodying a quest for change to improve living conditions.

While it is true that when a new city, howsoever meticulously planned, becomes a living entity, gathering its own rhythm and momentum; certain changes inevitably occur. The felt-needs change the original design mandate and many new factors emerge that could never have been foreseen much less provided for. Again, while in myriad ways, a city design moulds the civic life and pattern of living and exerts considerable formative influence on social attitudes and lifestyles, nonetheless as the living community takes root and attains its ambience, spatial relationships change. Chandigarh is no exception either.

Whether or not some of the ideas embedded in the Chandigarh Plan have worked or proved beneficial cannot be judged yet because the quality of planning can only be appreciated after some time has lapsed — when the planned city becomes functional. Being a dynamic entity, change and transformation is inherent in a city’s make-up. It cannot be otherwise. Several examples can be cited from far and near both in time and space: India has had a long tradition of planning and developing cities. For example, it can be observed that Jaipur is not what it was to begin with; neither are Hyderabad and Shahjahanabad. Or for that matter, the original New Delhi designed by Edwin Lutyens. As it were, New Delhi functioned as an imperial capital for less than 17 years; then came Independence and it became the Capital of the new Republic. And today, it has been transformed beyond belief, and certain areas of original New Delhi like the area north of Connaught Place between the walled city and the railway line, look nothing like the original designs.

Whether a new town’s plan has worked well, or whether it has lived up to its original promise, cannot in all fairness be judged by simplistic criteria or conventional norms of success or failure; indeed these are too "crude" to judge the quality of a city design or its form and fabric. In our considered view the reasonable criterion is to examine through experience as to how the original ideas translated into a spatial plan have been able to accommodate and manage change without basically impairing the original form and design. Viewed from this angle, Chandigarh, in spite of the whims, fancies and arbitrary decisions of politicians and decision-makers and competing vested interests, has done rather well. It is still the most livable city and has emerged as the most significant city between Delhi and Amritsar. In fact, Chandigarh has put India on the architectural map of the world.

Historically, Chandigarh was conceived to serve as the new capital of one state, namely Punjab. At the time of birth nobody could have dreamt that Punjab would undergo yet another division barely 20 years after its inception, and that Chandigarh would be made to serve as the capital of two states, each claiming exclusive rights over it. The year 1966 saw the creation of two unilingual states, Punjab and Haryana, carved out from the previously bilingual state. Actually the Shah Commission appointed by the central government for effectuating the division of the bilingual Punjab awarded the new city of Chandigarh to Haryana! This created a furore, and "at the epicenter of this political change was Chandigarh, which found itself caught between Haryana and Punjab, each state demanding the city as its own capital". Taking cognisance of strong sentiments, the central government rejected the commission’s recommendation, and, instead, made Chandigarh a "Union Territory". The new city was brought under its direct administration, and Chandigarh was made to serve, as the "joint capital" of both Punjab and Haryana, and the two states "were made to share the city on a 60:40 ratio".

The politicisation of Chandigarh led to its getting subjected to "peculiar administrative vagaries and other forms of non-institutional forms of political pressures".

Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister awarded Chandigarh to Punjab, and as compensation sanctioned Rs 200 crore for Haryana to build a new capital city. Since then Punjab and Haryana became "tenant states" of the central government, though, ironically, neither Punjab nor Haryana has so far paid any rent on buildings while each has been utilising Chandigarh and its urban amenities since 1966. In the meantime both states have also developed adjunct extensions: Punjab developed Mohali (called Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar) while Haryana has developed Panchkula on the north-eastern end of the planned city.

Being immediately south of Chandigarh, Mohali could, in a sense, be considered an extension of the original plan as conceived by Corbusier and his team; it follows the same grid and sector pattern.

Planned and built north-east of Chandigarh, Panchkula is different in its form and design pattern. Though both Mohali and Panchkula follow almost the same planning space standards, the quality of urban services in both these cities as compared to Chandigarh leaves much to be desired. Chandigarh is now fast emerging as an upcoming metropolis. The current population (June 2000) of Chandigarh is around 800,000 while that of Mohali is reportedly close to 190,000 and that of Panchkula is said to have crossed one lakh.

Mohali and Panchkula are not the only urban developments around Chandigarh. Before these two were developed, the Chandimandir cantonment, located between Chandigarh and Kalka was set up; then the Chandigarh Administration developed Manimajra village to accommodate a large number of jhuggi-dwellers. Subsequently, an Airforce station was developed on the southern side of the planned city. A few miles uphill, Himachal Pradesh developed Parwanoo to attract industrial firms, but little heed was paid to have any safeguards to protect the environment.

As a matter of fact, the planners of Chandigarh did forsee the possibility of haphazard development all around Chandigarh. Therefore, to protect the peripheral areas around the new capital city, the Punjab (new capital) Periphery Control Act, 1952 was promulgated. This legislation aimed to safeguard the vulnerable peripheral lands around the newly planned city.

Unfortunately, "things did not happen the way they were envisaged". This legislation, like many other laws of the land, was not effectively enforced and the result has been the emergence of several so-called "planned" townships around the city, all in defiance of the Act. As a result, all such "development" has laid pressure on Chandigarh’s limited urban infrastructure, besides creating traffic congestion, environmental pollution and many other problems.

In retrospect, it may be said that when the Central government decided to declare Chandigarh a Union Territory, it should have included the peripheral area within 10 miles (16 km) around Chandigarh to be administered by UT Administration. However, this was not done, leading to major violations in the periphery. In spite of all the laws we have, it is generally the lack of firmness in implementation and governance that results in the chaotic situation that can be seen today not only in Chandigarh but even in and around the national capital. The situation has come to such a pass in Chandigarh because of the involvement of two powerful state governments and politicians asserting their egos and acting at the behest of their vested interests; notwithstanding a carefully crafted legislation. Developments like the Chandimandir Cantonment, SAS Nagar and Panchkula came up, fulfilling the wishes of arrogant politicians with no interest or stake in the future. For the dubious benefit of the present, they virtually mortgaged the future of a uniquely designed city by an architect widely acknowledged the world over as a creative genius.

Why should Chandigarh be saved? What peculiar urban form does it have that makes it worthy of treatment as a world heritage city like Brazilia? Firstly, the way Chandigarh developed at the critical time it did, and, secondly, it was planned as something unique in the annals of town planning. Its design by Le Corbusier and his cousin Pierre Jeanneret makes it a unique experiment in city planning in the world. Like many other creative persons of his time, Corbusier had been searching new architectural forms for building human settlements because the old traditional styles of cities were proving inadequate, out-of-date and out-of-place. Corbusier may have been an eccentric, nonetheless he was a man of ideas. In his autobiography, for instance, he was always referring to himself in third-person singular. In one of his many writings, Corbusier stated: "They call him a dirty engineer, then a painter who tried to be an architect; then an architect who wanted to paint, finally a communist, than a fascist. Luckily, I have always had an iron will". In more than one sense, he was an angry man, but perhaps "most of his ire stemmed from his failure to convince others about the soundness of his ideas; and not being able to get opportunities to experiment boldly in what he believed." Apart from a few buildings, he did not get very far in France or elsewhere in Europe to build structures he so fondly designed. And certainly very few dared to offer him an opportunity to build an entirely new town, a complete city on virgin soil. Even in post-war Berlin, unlike other architects who together built an enclave, Corbusier built his Unite d’Habitation quite far away from all others.

As Ravi Kalia stated in his monograph on Chandigarh: had it not been for India, Corbusier search for the absolute authority that would say "Yes" to his plans would probably never (have) materialised; that authority was provided by Jawaharlal Nehru as a unique lifetime opportunity to design a completely new city in which he was given every chance to do his experiment". Very proudly Corbusier wrote: "It was the hour I have been waiting for — India, that humane and profound civilisation — to construct a new capital .... Urbanisation is the activity of a society. A capital "city" is the spirit of a nation."

Le Corbusier’s overriding concern and wish to get himself acknowledged as the prophet of modern architecture led to his involvement in architectural design and brought forth novel ideas which may not have proven to be very successful, yet they sparked creativity in many others. In any event, in so far as India was concerned, it admirably suited Nehru who himself was keen in being acknowledged as a harbinger of change, ushering India into a new world of modernism and technology, and, if possible, without repeating the mistakes and blunders of the urbanised nations of the west. In 1950s, there was no other political leader of his stature or calibre who dared to share his adventure of building a new India.

Nehru had said: "Amidst the reminders of the past, there now stands a new and utterly different, a growing city — Chandigarh, which is, in the main creation of the famous architect, Le Corbusier... It is a great creation which has powerfully affected Indian architecture and has brought forward new and fascinatingly fresh ideas to our architects and town planners".

While one can appreciate the keen desire of the Punjab Government to have a new city built marking the tercentenary of the Khalsa, but is it appropriate to locate it close to Chandigarh? A new town can be built elsewhere in Punjab, preferably at a location close to the birth of Khalsa panth. An ideal site can be found in the neighbourhood of Anandpur Sahib where plenty of kandi or ouser land could be made available. Besides, the region around Anandpur Sahib has many places and sites associated with the valour of Guru Gobind Singh. In fact, the whole locale between the Himalayas and Shivaliks in that area should be developed as a carefully planned National Park with forests and herbal gardens. Baba Kanhiya Ki Baoli is one such spot worth conserving to focus on the humane side of the Khalsa spirit.

The new town to commemorate 300 years of the Khalsa could be sensitively designed and developed with ideas and lessons learnt from the making of Chandigarh. In fact, the new city could be better than Chandigarh. Information technology has, in fact, opened up fresh vistas with potential to completely transform the spatial pattern of the new habitat. The emergence of the new IT order furnishes imaginative design possibilities.

In this context, it is worthwhile to remember the words of Jawaharlal Nehru at the architectural Seminar in Delhi (March 1959).

"Now I have welcomed very greatly one great experiment in India which you know very well — Chandigarh. Many people argue about it; some dislike it, some like it. It is totally immaterial whether you like it or not; it is the biggest thing, because it makes you think. You may squirm at the impact, but it makes you think and imbibe new ideas. And the one thing that India requires in so many fields is to be hit on the head, so that you may think. I do not like every building in Chandigarh. I like some very much, I like the general conception of the township very much. But what I like above all this, is the creative approach — not being tied down to what has been done by our forefathers and the like, but thinking out in new terms; trying to think in terms of light and air, and ground and water and human beings, not in terms of rules and regulations laid down by our ancestors..... Therefore, Chandigarh is of enormous importance, regardless of whether something in it succeeds or it does not."

The words of President K.R. Narayanan while inaugurating the international conference on 50 years of Chandigarh are apt: "Chandigarh may be a concert with many a discordant note .... Chandigarh is not a castle built in the air. The architecture of Chandigarh could not ignore the compelling needs of Indian society and the stubborn cultural values, despite all its freedom from the fetters of past traditions. There is no city planning that could succeed in the face of our society, habits of our people, lapses of administration and lack of education and health ... All said and done, Chandigarh is still the best city and is the cynosure of all eyes."