The nineteenth century discourse on Indian architecture

Abstract

The thesis deals with the subject of the marginalization of Indian architecture. The particular issue that it takes up is the tendency in the current criticism to attribute this marginalization to the "Orientalist " biases of the scholars who first attempted to study it. Key amongst these is James Fergusson, whose History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, written in 1876 was the pioneering text on the subject. His character as it emerges from these critical revisions is that of a haughty, supercilicious imperialist, who despite liking Indian architecture, could not appreciate it whole-heartedly and therefore ended up marginalizing it. Taking a stand against this interpretation, the thesis demonstrates that Fergusson's character was much more complex than it is made out to be and his appreciation of Indian architecture was genuine. He admired not just historical buildings but also contemporary practices in India, considering them as exemplary for European architects. The argument made is that his contribution to the marginalization of the Indian architecture therefore, resulted not from intention but, paradoxically, from his very efforts to promote its study. The point illustrated here is that the impact of the individual scholars on the consequent interpretation of their work is not deterministic and the causes for marginalization cannot be found in their cultural biases and aesthetic preferences alone. Instead, tracing the changing nature of the discourse on Indian architecture through the nineteenth century, the thesis suggests that the origins of the marginalization lie in the conditions under which the scholarship on it emerged. A fruitful reappraisal of such a scholarship thus calls for an analysis not just of particular texts or scholars, but the discursive practice that defines the subject.