Feisal Alkazi, author of Srinagar: An Architectural Legacy talks to Payel Majumdar about Kashmir’s multi-racial architectural heritage, its existence as a periphery kingdom, and its 777 gardens.

Could you tell me how this book came about?

A. I have been in and out of Srinagar for the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, that runs a rehabilitation programme for children whose parents have been killed by terrorists. I ran a project called “Discovering Kashmir” with them over a period of three-four years. This was my first set of trips to Kashmir, and I became interested in its heritage, its unique history, its sections of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Then INTACH’s Delhi office got in touch with me about writing this particular book because of my background, based on the listings (what INTACH does is list about 500 buildings, a group of architects go around and write a description.) They felt a self-directed guide book based on these listings had great potential.

Q. History is often looked upon as a dry subject. Do you think this is something that needs to be addressed within our education system?

A. With young people, my work has primarily been about making history come alive. I have worked a lot on heritage education, and I think it is very important that we stop teaching history as a lot of dates to cram up. Very often when I work with young people, I start with, “What in your house is 50 years old?” Then they start thinking, woh bartan hai, woh kursi hai. This is how we start with personal histories, and then we arrive at the history of a nation. Heritage education is about looking back at our roots, because we have this collective sense of what makes us Indian, whether it is something as simple as tandoorichicken or cricket. So what is it that we perceive as being Indian, and ourselves? How is someone who lives in Jaipur, different from someone who lives in Delhi, different from someone who lives in Srinagar? Every place has its own unique stamp. And I’ve done this exercise for 25 years.

Q. Three aspects of Kashmiri architecture that fascinates you?

A. One, that so much of Kashmiri architecture was done without cement. You can’t think of any building these days without cement. And if you think of the buildings there — sufi shrines like Khanqah-i-Muaallah or the other sufi shrines, they structure the building in a way that the weight of it keeps it down, using deodar logs with bricks, and building a whole structure without concrete. Another aspect of the traditional structure is that all buildings are earthquake proof, for it is a seismic zone. They use these diagonal members, like how they use in Simla — very rarely do you have buildings where horizontal and vertical beams aren’t in use. And then there are these very specific features — how they use papier mache in the decoration of walls, or the idea of the balcony — the dub — which is always wooden. These structures have been there since the 15th-16th century. You might replace the knobs, but essentially the structures are unchanged. You have those Maharaja bricks as well, which you see in the Old Delhi.

Q. How are gardens a crucial aspect of Kashmiri architecture?

A. Kashmir held a strategic position for the Mughal Empire because the main cities were Delhi, Agra and Lahore. All the early Mughals never built palaces, because they lived inshamianas. Theirs was a moving, transient culture. When the Emperor annually moved out of Delhi, 65% of the population moved with him. 2,00,000-3,00,000 people were on the move and there would be two travelling tented cities, one that the Emperor would stay at for the night, and one that would be set up ahead for the next halt.

There is no flat land in Kashmir where you can pitch tents for these many people. To accommodate the Emperor’s entourage the gardens came up with pavilions and palace tents. There is the whole structure of the Red Fort in the royal gardens of Kashmir—Diwaan-i-khaas, a diwaan-i-aam, a zenana, a mardaana. There would be two or three pavilions — like the one in black marble in Shalimar Garden ­— around which colourful tents would be pitched. They say that there were 777 gardens around the Dal lake. And Dal Lake was never the centre of the city. Gardens would be built because the soil is so fertile, that everything thrives in it under Kashmiri weather. The Mughals had come from Bukhara and Samarkhand, which also have prominent gardens. The very idea is crucial to Mughal architecture as a whole.

Q. How have the different rulers influenced different styles of architecture, and how have these architectural styles come together?

A. Architecture anywhere is an outcome of what is locally available as building material. Say, if in your vicinity there is a particular kind of tree, which becomes the building material, then you are limited by the height of that tree, the durability of that tree. For instance, for those khatamband ceilings in Kashmir, you use pine which is very thin, like plywood, that can be replaced, while the exteriors last forever.

So structures that come up traditionally reflect the surroundings completely and are built for that time. Kashmir was never the centre of an empire, it was the periphery of an empire. As a result, being on the periphery, too much of the architecture did not change. And when the Dogras came, in the last 110 years — when they bought it from the British for 75,00,000, they brought in a lot of British influences — the similarity of the Gothic arches, specific style of building, use of repetition, and the Kashmiri architecture since then is sometimes a combination of that and older traditions. There was hardly any Mughal influence on residential architecture. The Mughals created those pavilions in the gardens and created the gardens, one gateway and a couple of mosques. And really, the mosque Noor Jehan created was never prayed in, whether it was because it was built in stone, built by a woman, or by someone who wasn’t perceived to be Kashmiri.

Q. Are there ongoing efforts in Kashmir by the locals to preserve their architectural heritage proactively?

A. Certainly, the local INTACH chapter has done quite a bit. They have done a beautiful conservation job on the Aali Masjid. The government has stepped in as well to restore the temples in Martand; so yes, there is an interest in keeping that style of architecture alive. But builders come into question, and suddenly things change when money comes in from other parts of the world, which influences the whole thing. When Hazratbal was built in the ’60s, they decided to use a dome, which is a West Asian influence. A dome is not suitable for a place where it snows, marble is not a good for Kashmir which has three months of winter. But there were political pressures there, which decided not to use traditional Kashmriri three-tiered pagoda roof but build something that looked like it was out of the Middle East.

source: http://www.sunday-guardian.com / The Sunday Guardian / Home> Artbeat / by Payel Majumdar / August 23rd, 2014