Dr Swapna Liddle is an author and historian who specializes in the history of Delhi. She has been closely involved in the movement to preserve heritage monuments and sites. She is currently the convenor of the Delhi chapter of the Indian National Trust For Art And Cultural Heritage (INTACH). Her latest books are Connaught Place, The Making of New Delhi and Chandni Chowk: The Mughal City Of Old Delhi.
1. Kunal Chauhan: Delhi has been through so many changes. Do you think there is a feature of Delhi that has remained the same throughout the centuries?
- Swapna Liddle: One thing that has not changed at all during the centuries is that for a long time Delhi has been receiving people coming from outside. People have come from outside, whether you talk about the twelfth century when the Turks came and set up the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals came— but it’s not just empires or empire builders— people have come from everywhere and this is the nature of big cities.
It’s only villages which have these self-contained communities, even that is not actually true but these are not great magnets of people from outside, unlike cities. People have come from all around and made it their home and they have contributed a little bit of their own culture to the making of the city. Every time we feel that this is something new but it’s not- it’s been happening for centuries. So 1947 was one of the times when a lot of that happened but the population suddenly grew because there was an influx.
But we’ve been seeing this kind of growth all through- in fact Delhi like every big metropolis is a city of migrants. So I think I would say if there is one thing that hasn’t changed it is this.
- Kunal Chauhan: There is a lot of scepticism among the general populace regarding historians and academic history in general, and a lot of them are often swayed by popular perceptions of the past. Like for instance, there is a belief that most of the Indo-Islamic structures, including many in Delhi like those in the Qutb Complex, were built after demolishing the existing ‘Hindu’ structures. How can we possibly bridge this gap between such popular ideas and academic history, and make history more accessible to the people?
- Swapna Liddle: I think the problem is that there is a huge burden on historians unlike with other academic disciplines.
Look at something like medicine for instance— doctors have specialised knowledge and between themselves, within the discipline of medicine they communicate through academic papers, books, textbooks and other monographs— all that writing takes place. It’s in highly technical language, but that’s okay- these are exchanges between doctors.
Historians also communicate like this: we write monographs, research thesis, academic articles etc. but I suppose there is so much public interest in history that people are constantly demanding that historians should spend their time writing for a lay readership. People are not demanding that of engineers or doctors- how many people are saying that engineering manuals
are too difficult for a layperson to read? Nobody is complaining about that, they are meant to be engineering manuals and therefore they have a certain amount of technical language. I would say compared to that the average history book is actually a lot more accessible.
So that charge that it is not accessible is slightly unfair I would say- we are not expecting that of other academic disciplines. But, be that as it may, the reason for that is because a lot of people are actually interested in history.
So I would say that yes, there is some need for historians to be writing in a more accessible manner. As I said it’s difficult for them— you are supposed to be writing for peer-reviewed publications as well, for your career advancements— you need all those things, and then you’re supposed to write for the general readership as well. But again, if you don’t write that space gets filled up with people who have no training in history and therefore are making pronouncements on subjects which they don’t really understand that well. So it is a complicated thing but I would say there is a lot of history writing that is happening which is actually quite accessible and before people dismiss historians as writing ‘difficult’ texts which we cannot read, I’ll say give it a try.
History writing is still a lot easier to understand for a non-specialist also. So before you give it up and go only for easy, popular writing, I think even the lay readers should give historians a chance because historians’ training does make a difference to the kind of content they write and how they analyse things. And yes, if you ignore historical writing and go for popular- these days, of course, it’s complicated by the fact that there is so much stuff that is on the Internet which has no credibility because anybody can put up anything on the Internet. So people proliferate- and the more sensational it is, the more quickly it proliferates on the Internet. A lot of information and misinformation is actually floating around and there is no way of discerning what is what.
It is up to the reader to actually see- where am I getting information from? Who is putting this up and what are their credentials, as historians- by historians I mean do they have any research experience in the field of history? Those are the kind of questions you should ask.
- Kunal Chauhan: I think the biggest example becomes this entire Taj Mahal discussion- like the number of forwards that we have received. Because I studied history so many of my uncles and aunts keep sending me this thing- Is it true? Is it actually what happened? And I’m like no, please don’t believe it, it’s not at all true. Just check who sent it. There are no credits given- somebody has just written something on Whatsapp and forwarded it- so do not believe it.
So yes, I completely agree with you on that point but ma’am, do you think that conducting more heritage walks can really help in this regard? Like often you have something in the book and actually visiting the place with an expert and seeing all those things is just going to have a very different impact on a general member of the public. So do you think conducting heritage walks can help in this regard?
- Swapna Liddle: Yes, of course- heritage walks help in generating awareness about places. And I would say even among history students- when I was studying history in college, I
remember we had the mandatory art and architecture sections in our syllabus. But we rarely did go— and I was in Delhi, I could easily have gone— nobody really asked us to go and actually see these places and buildings to see what we’re talking about in the book. So I think there was too little of that, there is much greater awareness now and yes, it really helps.
Let me give the example, say, of Qutb Minar. You mentioned the fact that the whole temple destruction idea is there— now when you go to the Qutb Minar, you actually see those temples— the temples that were destroyed during the war of conquest and how they have been reused in the mosque. Now, the question that arises is how does somebody who is explaining that site to you, a walk leader?
And I’ve been through the standard guides who take you there— how they explain it to you, and how somebody who’s actually studied the site— and I have studied the site, I’ve written articles on it. How I understand it can be very different because that’s what a historian does; understand contexts- how does this destruction take place, what is the context, what is the idea behind it, how does that site develop after that- because this is a period of conflict which is followed by the consolidation of the Delhi Sultanate which takes a very different turn. It is not as if that moment of conflict or what happened during that conflict then carries on indefinitely where the whole history of the Sultanate and Mughal Delhi becomes one of oppression. So, that is the problem- when you make that one moment stand-in for all the centuries that follow after that.
So those are the kind of nuances that a historian can bring to the discussion of a site like that and I think that’s why the kind of walks that specialists do really help in understanding sites and in a particularly complicated sense.
Kunal Chauhan: That’s very rightly put and I think as a former student of history, in all the heritage walks I’ve attended there is always something great that I have taken away and even though if I have studied all those places theoretically, actually being in those spaces and witnessing them first-hand is a whole different experience.
- Kunal Chauhan: Ma’am, how far do you think we can engage the local people in the process of conservation of structures and local arts? Do you think that also serves a pedagogic purpose?
- Swapna Liddle: I think it’s very important because a lot of the sites which we see today as monuments— the Qutb Minar sight for instance— was originally a part of the community of Mehrauli. It was actually during colonial times that these became monuments.
Now, for various reasons today, it makes sense for us today to continue to manage them as monuments, particularly the big sites like the Qutb Minar, Humayun’s Tomb- nobody is saying that they should not be managed in an unprofessional manner, they are major tourist sites. But when we broaden our scope of heritage and look a little further- look at monuments that are slightly off the beaten track particularly in Delhi.
I look at an ASI protected monument, say the Begumpur Masjid. It’s an enormous mosque- it is the second-largest mosque in Delhi, built in the 14th century and around it is the Begumpur
village, which is really close to the walls of the mosque. Now what generally used to happen was – in fact till the 1920’s, many of the villagers were actually living in the mosque. It was only later that the mosque was acquired and was turned into a monument.
Now what happens is, a mosque like that- it’s not as if it’s seeing a huge number of tourists coming there. I think the people living there should be encouraged to use that mosque— for informal meetings, for sitting down and chatting, ladies enjoying the sun— I think that even though they are not living there, they should be allowed to do all of these things.
What happens is that because we kind of police the monument against the people who are living in it’s immediate vicinity and who have a historical connection to it. We are pushing them out and we are putting the railings and locks and guards. So all these benign activities— and of course it should be monitored so that no actual harm is done— all these activities get kept out and therefore resentment develops among people for this monument.
On the other hand, the people who are really not up to any good will somehow find a way of climbing the railings and go in and they are the ones who will actually damage the monument and sometimes make it unsafe also- you go in and obviously see all these strewn bottles of alcohol and all that. So in fact by excluding local communities you are making the place more vulnerable whereas integration in a sensitive manner could actually be good for the monument.
Beyond that, I also look at that heritage that is not state-owned because we define heritage in many different ways. So a two-hundred-year-old house in Mehrauli village is also heritage and that may be somebody’s property. How do we make sure that is protected and preserved for posterity as heritage? And there is legal protection since these are often listed buildings but it makes no sense unless the people who live in that recognise it’s value as heritage and not simply as the plot of land on which it stands and therefore it makes more economic sense to demolish it and build a four-storey house.
They have to see the value in its heritage and the state has to help to generate the value in that heritage and that can be done through things like good heritage and tourism policies.
I always give this example of Agra- Agra has three UNESCO world heritage sites- it has a lot of these important monuments and the city also has a large population. If you compare it to a small town called Savannah in Georgia in the Southern U.S- it receives double the number of visitors that Agra gets. It has no UNESCO world heritage sites, no important monuments- it only has a well-preserved historic district. Beautiful houses- many of them are heritage hotels, restaurants, shops- it’s just the ambience which an old historic neighbourhood has and that is what attracts people. People go and spend three days there whereas people will go one day to Agra and will try to finish up Fatehpur Sikri, Agra Fort and Taj Mahal in one day and come away. Because they don’t want to stay there.
- Swapna Liddle:They just want to see the monument, not hang out in the city whereas if you concentrate on the city- and Agra also is an old town, you can do a lot to the monuments etc. and similarly, with Delhi- Shahjahanabad, of course, people go there. Where can you spend time? Street food is all very well but it doesn’t take very much time so it’s not like people will stay
and the economic benefits of tourism happen only when tourists spend some time at the place. So the public-private partnership- and I’m talking about a public which is the general public, not the corporates- the private should be small people, whether it is people who are specialising in food or owners of heritage properties, young people leading walks- all this has to come together to transform heritage into an economic asset. Only when it becomes an economic asset can it become sustainable and viable because you can’t expect people to preserve heritage only on sentiment and the idea that ‘this is our great legacy or heritage’- it’s not enough because people have to earn their livings also.
Kunal Chauhan: And I think something which I completely agree with you on was when you mentioned how all these places used to be commonplaces of their respective times and now they are monuments- but somewhere these were living spaces. As much as people need them, the spaces also need the people to engage and interact with them and actually make these spaces useful for these people. I think that is something absolutely right and with so many monuments in every little corner of Delhi, it needs to be put to better use for the general public and that is going to be beneficial not just for the public but also the monuments- for better preservation of the monument.
- Kunal Chauhan: In your opinion, are non-governmental organisations better equipped to deal with conservation and heritage promotion because they do not associate with ideologies of nationalism or political and social identities?
- Swapna Liddle: I would not say that organisations are necessarily politically neutral, they may not be, but as far as preservation they often have greater responsiveness to immediate public demands of change. These are things that a non-governmental body can do much quicker. Let me give you one example, the Delhi state itself is a fairly new entity, it’s not one of the older states. But it has a department of archaeology which actually does a lot of protection and conservation of buildings. Now they don’t have a very big staff and it’s not a very big department, but all their conservation work is done through INTACH and that is actually quite a good relationship, because:
a) the department, it’s not very bloated it does not have a huge staff or huge technical personnel etc, it’s less of a burden on the taxpayer.
INTACH does work on a consultancy basis. We do the work that is required to be done without that permanent personnel being employed in the department itself and because we have the professional expertise, we do an equally good job. It’s not as if it’s compromised, because we are a technically competent body as well, and then we can interface our conservation work with our heritage awareness work also.
So, while we are doing conservation work, we are also doing that outreach among the people of Delhi so that the message of conservation goes out to a wider public. So, I think this kind of involvement is good in the conservation field.
Kunal Chauhan: I think that makes sense. As you rightly mentioned, with the certain professional expertise of non-government organisations, they can be more of an asset to work with the government and actually work in a lot of these areas.
- Kunal Chauhan: How far did the post-colonial government in India manage to appropriate the imperial edifice of the colonial government in its nation-building exercise, sometimes at the cost of erasing provincial cultures?
- Swapna Liddle: You know in the colonial period a lot of things were disrupted. If you look at one very simple example, our education system was disrupted, in the sense of we got
western-style colleges. The educational system was completely overhauled, particularly higher education and primary education. Nobody would say that the education system that we have today is a continuation of the kind of education system that we had in North India during the late Mughal period, no. It’s different. The practise of architecture is a modern practice. So all that has necessarily changed, our political systems have changed.
Now instead of seeing this simply as ok this is colonial and therefore we should throw it out and before that, what was there was Mughal, so we should throw that out and before that was sultanate which was also alien, so let’s throw it out and go back to some pristine Indian past.
Kunal Chauhan: The idea of India, like a “true India”, is so bizarre.
Swapna Liddle (in continuation): So what we have actually is a process of change and many things have happened during that process of change. We have to see, and I think the founding fathers of modern independent India were quite pragmatic about these things to say let us work with what we have and try and see how we can make a better India. What we did not like, let’s get rid of it.
What we liked, let us keep and let us try and improve it. So, therefore, that was a pragmatic idea, without sentimentality about anything. So they said ok, we don’t think colonial rule is good, the British should not be ruling us, that does not mean that everything that the British did here should be thrown out. We have to work with the system because if we throw it out, how do we replace it, what do we put in its place?
That would require a lot of time and effort and will not be useful. So it was a pragmatic approach and therefore as I say, the ASI was also the creation of a colonial government. But our aim should be how to keep it moving, keep it evolving, keep it changing to meet our needs as they are today. But keep it. Because like it or not, one way or the other that is what manages most of our nationally protected monuments. So these institutions, these places, how they have evolved, this is a historical process and we cannot throw everything out but we have to see how things can be managed better. You know there can never be ideal situations but we have to make the best of what there is.
I don’t know whether that was the thrust of your question but if you had some other angle, please let me know.
Kunal Chauhan: No no! I think that more or less covers what I wanted to ask you. Ok! I’m just going to ask the last question now.
- Kunal Chauhan: What do you think is a better way of preserving monuments- by keeping it in its natural state, making bare minimum repairs, since even the destruction of a monument- partial or otherwise has its own history, or do you think it is better to use modern repair techniques extensively to restore it to its pristine state?
8. Swapna Liddle: I think there are various aspects of this.
One is the conservative approach, there is a term for this, conserve as found. So if you find a ruin try and consolidate it so that it does not deteriorate further but keep it in that state of ruin. Now that applies to a lot of buildings that are around. That is the default option which actually the ASI uses. For instance, you have a building that’s in disuse, you know it may be a tomb, it may be a mosque, whatever, it’s not in use anymore. It’s just there as a monument to the past. You conserve it as found.
The second thing is, and this applies particularly to buildings that are in use. Even before I come to buildings that are in use, there are important structures that are of great value, like Humayun’s tomb for instance or other buildings which are of interest or are tourist attractions etc. Now their choices may be made as to how much you will put in. Now, most of the time the idea is where there are missing elements, so I’ll give you the example of there’s a tomb in Vasanth Vihar called Bara Lao Ka gumbad near the Vasanth Lok market. Bara Lao Ka gumbad INTACH conserved and we found that there were traces of blue tiles, a striped pattern of blue tiles on the dome and we saw that and we have a technical committee that evaluates these things. They have members of the ASI also. And we had a meeting with the technical committee and we said since we know what are the materials that were used, that this used to be blue tile on this dome, should we try and bring that back?
And it took us a long time to really match the texture of those particular tiles. In any case, all the conservative that we do, all the repair work we do, we make sure that all the material used is the original material in the sense in which all these old buildings were not made of cement as we these days use but they used limestone mortar and limestone plaster. So we always, in any case, all the repairs that we do, all the conservation we do, we in any case use the original material only. We match it very carefully.
So in this case wherever the tiles were missing we added new tiles but closely matching the specification of the older ones, which was there earlier. So that is when you say conserve as found, this is going one step further and saying we are restoring the monument. Now restoration may also mean rebuilding certain parts. If you find half an arch you have a good idea of what the rest of the arch looked like, right? So you can reconstruct it. So that is going one step further.
Now there has been a lot of debate on this particularly in India there’s been a lot of criticism of attempts to rebuild but let me put this in a different perspective. Many of us travel to Europe, do we realize how many of those cathedrals, those palaces were bombed during the second world war? A lot of Europe’s architectural heritage lay in ruins at the end of the second world war. It has all been reconstructed. Imagine if they had thought let us conserve it as found, let us not rebuild anything because this belonged to the 18th century, if it’s destroyed it’s destroyed.
You cannot rebuild it in the 20th century. They did not do that. They rebuilt it and we go and
admire these things. But we are not allowed to let this happen in India. Why? So I think we should look at these things a little bit more carefully. Let me look at lastly the buildings in use particularly. For instance, there is an old temple, an old mosque which is in continuous use. Now obviously if they are being used in the 21st century, they do need running water, they do need electricity etc. They should get technical expertise on how to make sure that that building is upgraded and conserved in a proper manner. That you are not putting inappropriate materials like tiles which don’t belong there or stone which was never intended to be there. But conserve it in the proper manner and at the same time upgrade, put in your air conditioning, put in your electricity, put in all the things that you want but do it in a sensitive manner and for that, the use of heritage experts is very important. We are doing a conservation project at St. James’ church. I’m showing that a building that is continuously in use can be upgraded but in keeping with its heritage character and its structural integrity should be maintained.
Kunal Chauhan: Right! Yes I think it does make a lot of sense especially with the example that you have given of Europe and how they sort of rebuilt a lot of those monuments and I read about a lot of them and I have personally visited a few of them and it is actually very true. Not everything can be left as it is found. Restoration work thus very much becomes essential with certain monuments. Yes, I think that is absolutely very true.
Kunal Chauhan: Thank you so much Dr Liddle for taking out your precious time to talk to us. I am so very sure that all of us here are going to appreciate whatever you have said to us and are going to listen carefully to whatever you have discussed in the course of the interview. Thank you so very much.Swapna Liddle: Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to talk to you.
The city of Delhi has seen a myriad shade of power, politics and culture. We
had a conversation with historian and author, Dr Swapna Liddle, about conservation, urban history and the spirit of Delhi.
Kunal is a Delhi based lawyer & policy analyst and has been working in the social sector since the last seven years. He is the Founder of ITISARAS and currently presides as the Chairman of the Governing Body of the organisation.