Chapter 1: With Nehru's vision for Chandigarh different from Corbusier's vision, was there a east-west dialectic playing out in the city's design? While for Nehru, the city had to be a symbol of modernism, and reflect the modern aspirations of a newly emerging industrial nation, Corbusier imagined a modern city that was nostalgic for India's poverty and primitivism.
Chapter 2 discusses the element of modernity in the masterplan of the city from its conception to its final form. Where was the design imported from and who were the actors?
In Postcolonial India, are the terms 'modern' and 'Indian' mutually exclusive? Is Chandigarh perceived as an 'un-Indian' city because it was designed to be modern and by a western architect?Prakash traces the initial idea for Chandigarh, beginning with Fletcher's strong call for a 'Garden City' model, and PL Verma's stronger opposition for it. Verma's opposition ensured that Chandigarh would be a designed as a more typical city but would preserve Ebenezer Howard's 'Garden City' ideas. Albert Mayer, an american town-planner working in Uttar Pradesh was appointed to materialize the garden city idea. Mayer's design promised a city "strongly Indian in feel and function, as well as modern. With Mayer's partner's premature death, Verma approached English husband-wife architects Fry and Drew who in turn referred him to Le Corbusier. Corbusier was initially appointed only to 'advise and actively assist' in construction of Mayer's plans, but he gradually took charge and demanded to re-design the city to reflect his ideology. A 'Capitol' head was put in place, and arterial roads were designed to connect various 'Sectors'. Prakash argues that Corbusier did not design Chandigarh based on Lutyens' New Delhi, even though he admired it.
Chapter 3 discusses the design of the Capitol Complex. By delving into the religious influences in Corbusier's life, it aims to show a human side of a "fallen hero who failed in deliverance". Prakash examines the Biblical and philosophical influences in Corbusier's painting of the Capitol Door, and his idea of rural-utopia.
Chapter 4 offers an in-depth (psycho)analysis of Corbusier's sketches of the high court and the assembly building. He argues that the scale of these buildings seem vast and limitless to human scale because Corbusier measured them against the backdrop of Himalayas. Prakash (through Fruedian principles) analyzes that his design of the assembly building as reminiscent of an Indian bull indicates his eagerness for the villagers to understand his buildings (as he fascinated with noble savages).
[Thankfully, the author ends this chapter with "it is impossible for me to verify whether Le Corbusier ever meant all that I have understood his buildings to be." But sadly, he also adds, "Nonetheless, it would be disingenuous to deny that one always writes, and designs, with the hope of verification."]
Chapter 5 discusses the history of symbolism of Corbusier's 'open hand' icon that was adopted by the city of Chandigarh almost 30 years since its proposal. Prakash does a survey of several of Corbusier's 'Hand' paintings and argues that the inspiration for Chandigarh's open hand came from the monument in memory of the left-wing mayor of Villejuif in France in 1938. Prakash divides the analysis in three parts - He describes the first wave of open hand designs to be Corbusier's personal thoughts and obsessions, with the figure the second wave to reflect India's position as a non-aligned nation during the war. By the time of the third wave (the time when the open hand was installed in Chandigarh) its meaning entangled with Corbusian ideas and Nehruvian politics was largely forgotten. "The open to give, open to receive" hand is today only graphically remembered as a symbol of Chandigarh.
Chapter 2 discusses the element of modernity in the masterplan of the city from its conception to its final form. Where was the design imported from and who were the actors?
In Postcolonial India, are the terms 'modern' and 'Indian' mutually exclusive? Is Chandigarh perceived as an 'un-Indian' city because it was designed to be modern and by a western architect?Prakash traces the initial idea for Chandigarh, beginning with Fletcher's strong call for a 'Garden City' model, and PL Verma's stronger opposition for it. Verma's opposition ensured that Chandigarh would be a designed as a more typical city but would preserve Ebenezer Howard's 'Garden City' ideas. Albert Mayer, an american town-planner working in Uttar Pradesh was appointed to materialize the garden city idea. Mayer's design promised a city "strongly Indian in feel and function, as well as modern. With Mayer's partner's premature death, Verma approached English husband-wife architects Fry and Drew who in turn referred him to Le Corbusier. Corbusier was initially appointed only to 'advise and actively assist' in construction of Mayer's plans, but he gradually took charge and demanded to re-design the city to reflect his ideology. A 'Capitol' head was put in place, and arterial roads were designed to connect various 'Sectors'. Prakash argues that Corbusier did not design Chandigarh based on Lutyens' New Delhi, even though he admired it.
Chapter 3 discusses the design of the Capitol Complex. By delving into the religious influences in Corbusier's life, it aims to show a human side of a "fallen hero who failed in deliverance". Prakash examines the Biblical and philosophical influences in Corbusier's painting of the Capitol Door, and his idea of rural-utopia.
Chapter 4 offers an in-depth (psycho)analysis of Corbusier's sketches of the high court and the assembly building. He argues that the scale of these buildings seem vast and limitless to human scale because Corbusier measured them against the backdrop of Himalayas. Prakash (through Fruedian principles) analyzes that his design of the assembly building as reminiscent of an Indian bull indicates his eagerness for the villagers to understand his buildings (as he fascinated with noble savages).
[Thankfully, the author ends this chapter with "it is impossible for me to verify whether Le Corbusier ever meant all that I have understood his buildings to be." But sadly, he also adds, "Nonetheless, it would be disingenuous to deny that one always writes, and designs, with the hope of verification."]
Chapter 5 discusses the history of symbolism of Corbusier's 'open hand' icon that was adopted by the city of Chandigarh almost 30 years since its proposal. Prakash does a survey of several of Corbusier's 'Hand' paintings and argues that the inspiration for Chandigarh's open hand came from the monument in memory of the left-wing mayor of Villejuif in France in 1938. Prakash divides the analysis in three parts - He describes the first wave of open hand designs to be Corbusier's personal thoughts and obsessions, with the figure the second wave to reflect India's position as a non-aligned nation during the war. By the time of the third wave (the time when the open hand was installed in Chandigarh) its meaning entangled with Corbusian ideas and Nehruvian politics was largely forgotten. "The open to give, open to receive" hand is today only graphically remembered as a symbol of Chandigarh.
