Victoria Memorial: When will Bengal get another one?

Architectural masterpieces all over the world have always served as icons of art and culture for their countries. Some of them have become synonymous with the countries they belong to.

What the Eiffel Tower is to Paris and France, the Sydney Opera House is to Sydney and Australia. What Big Ben is to London and England, the Statue of Liberty is to New York and the US.

Many developed countries now have at least two icons to boast of. One of them is usually a heritage monument symbolising their past achievements, such as the Coliseum in Rome, and the other one a contemporary structure celebrating the advancement of technology and new-age aesthetics.

Last week, a well-known civil servant and author said at the Calcutta Club-Desh annual debate that all successful revolutions are identifiable by their acceptance in the creative community.

Poems, stories, songs, paintings, films and theatre have always used such movements as their backdrop and indirectly put their stamp of approval.

Similarly, iconic architecture remains an example of a particular period’s social, cultural and political achievements. It establishes a nation’s belief in itself. It can act as a symbol of change as well as progress.

In India, we have had Taj Mahal as our national icon for a long time. Built in the early 17th century, it truly symbolises the spirit of India in the medieval times. We have many other examples from earlier periods, which are now listed as World Heritage sites. From Nalanda, Konarak, Khajuraho to Hampi, Thanjavur, Halebid, Ajanta and Ellora, the list is never-ending.

But beyond the Taj and Fatehpur Sikri, there is a yawning gap. The architecture of the colonial rulers has never been able to match the standards set by their Indian predecessors.

Fortune smiled on us after Independence as two of the world’s greatest modern architects came to work in India. Le Corbusier in Chandigarh and Ahmedabad in the 1950s and Louis Kahn in Ahmedabad in the1960s.

Their works have ensured that these two cities are now well known among architects all over the world. Unfortunately, all the other cities in India have failed to produce icons of their own to represent the post-Independence period.

The worst of the Indian cities in this aspect is our own Calcutta where the only icon worth mentioning is still the age-old Victoria Memorial Hall. Which means that psychologically, Calcutta has remained in the pre-Independence period.

The city has accepted that architecturally, it can only produce mediocre stuff and anything good has to belong to the colonial period. The developer in Calcutta believes that quality work can only come from abroad and in the absence of a Corbusier or a Kahn, it can be one of their poor cousins from East Asia.

Although it is fashionable for them to get an architect from abroad, they are blind to the quality of work. As a result, the city has become a guinea pig for those who want to hone their immature skills at the cost of the Calcutta skyline.

The end result? People still perceive the pre-Independence buildings as the only examples of good architecture in our city.

It is not that people are not making an attempt to produce good architecture. Some developers and their designers are still trying their best. Their efforts are visible in the expanse of structural glazing over matchboxes of varying size.

Meanwhile, Calcutta, Salt Lake and New Town Rajarhat still wait for that iconic structure to symbolise the so-called new age of Bengal.

The author is an architect and urban designer