The start of this month was special for me for two reasons. First, I was in the Taj Mahal on Valentine’s Day and second, a visit to the city of Agra brought me some fear, hope, and confidence as far as the space poetics of Kathmandu city is concerned. The Taj Mahal, the cosmic mausoleum built by Shah Jahan in 1653 (after 22 years of work) in memory of his wife Mumtaj, drew my interest to compare it with Kathmandu and its survival, accommodating the vibrancy of city architecture. I am certain that Kathmandu will outlast most other cities if we don’t take for granted its architecture.  

I visited Agra with Abhi Subedi, my guru, who discussed with me the questions of architecture and anthropomorphic relations. The Taj Mahal as a historically constructed ‘poetics of space’, which Shiva Rijal, my other guru, had advised me to look at, presented a challenge. To put it in a few words, it was the subject of museumisation and the direct use of space by society that constitutes its neighbourhood.

A city isolated

The old Indian city of Agra, which was the most powerful state during the Mughal era, provides an example. I want to show how the ‘space’ of Taj Mahal is museumised, as a result of which it has distanced the city architecture from the dynamism of the city of Agra. The city is so rundown that it does not have any dynamism, in comparison to the monuments built on it, like the Taj Mahal and Agra Fort. What strikes me most is this phenomenon of distancing the monuments from everyday affairs and thus, isolating it. I would call that isolated monument a museumised construction. The monuments, by projecting strong and dominant images, become a cause for the elimination of vibrancy and dynamism in the city by finishing with the compatibility between the monument and the city.

In comparison to Agra, the Kathmandu Valley is much more dynamic, as it has continued with compatibility with its monuments. Whether it is Bhaktapur, Lalitpur, or Kathmandu, there is a similarity between the monuments and the houses. Similar kinds of windows are constructed in both dwellings and sacred spaces like temples and other shrines. As a result, the city has not lost its ‘aura’. Kathmandu is still lively and vibrant. It is surviving because of the cultural performances related to its space. This nexus of culture and space helps the city survive. Kathmandu seems to be better at preserving the sense of a city, since there is a continnum in the monuments and the living houses. The beautifully carved and architecturally important windows (aankhijhyal) have a dominant presence in the ancient temples of the city. So is the case with people’s houses. Even the roof structures and interior designs match monuments.

However, we should not be satisfied with this, because a lot of modern buildings are overwhelming culturally important monuments and buildings. By this, I don’t mean that we don’t have anything to do further to conserve our building traditions and local spaces of cultural importance. There is a huge enterprise left for us to make the city even more vibrant. A collective effort is required to better the situation.

A sense of harmony still continues in Kathmandu. The spaces are not only museumised but also protected to some extent. Protection does not merely mean sanctifying the space but rather, giving continuation to it in any form, whether it is as a dwelling space or the construction of a new monument following tradition. In the latter case, some alterations may be unavoidable, but they should not violate the sense of authenticity.  

Place and perception

The whole idea of space constitutes  optical perception. A location plays a major role in the idea of space. Most ancient cities are ruined and some of them dilapidated. This causes concern among conservationists as well as the public in general, at least those who wish to safeguard the civilisation that they identify with. For the survival of the city in terms of habitation, harmony in the structures of houses with monuments or historical sites is paramount. Unless there is compatibility, locals can’t safeguard the structure of the city. Distancing and breaking harmony with the monuments in one’s periphery can be disastrous.

The city of Agra, therefore, is not surviving in its true sense. I am not being regressive here as I too regard modern constructions as a progressive approach. However, for the survival of the city, it must continue with its legacy. The city of Agra is run down because it could not capture the spirit of its ancient monuments.

If those concerned had paid more attention, Agra could have been saved. The entire city has the vanity of the Taj Mahal and the Agra Fort. I don’t mean to be so conservative regarding the past but my point here is that the ancient must be given continuity along with modernism. Protecting and continuing with ancient forms of architecture can protect long-cherished heritage, which has become essentially fundamental for us, especially in this time of crisis.

Staving disaster

Architecture and heritage are ‘signifying’ systems for us and hence they give continuity to the dynamism of the city and continue the lineage of ‘space’. We can make changes by bringing into existence systematic forms of similar kind of monuments, though perhaps not as expensive as the Mahal. Museumising a place is disastrous, since it only projects the distance between the people and the heritage. In Agra, new concrete monstrosities have overwhelmed the city.

Kathmandu too may have a similar tension between monuments and living houses if the current process of urbanisation continues. This distancing of space can be utterly dangerous in the sense that it may collapse and only a faded memory will remain. To make a city a metropolitan location, monuments, houses, and buildings should be compatible. We need to be conscious of this in Kathmandu.

Adhikari is a faculty member of the Central Department of Management, Tribhuvan University