Chandigarh was designed by a team of European architects, most notably Jane Drew and

Maxwell Fry who then commissioned Le Corbusier following India’s independence from the

British Raj in 1947. The city was intended to symbolise a new Indian identity, independent of

British control and influence. This evidences the decolonialism of the Chandigarh project,

aiming to subvert and challenge the legacy of the colonial power. However, we see

neocolonial elements of the project as well, as the commission of British architects to design

the buildings and city the decolonial intentions by allowing the former colonial power to

retain influence through architectural style and practices, namely Western modernism.

The commission of British architects to fortify India’s independence form British Raj is

inherently counterintuitive. Assuming the architects were to immerse themselves and the

project in cultural understanding of the context within which they build, their Western

training and architectural ideologies will inevitably translate through their work and teaching.

Consequently, independent India will have its foundations built upon Western modernist

influences, thus the project is innately neocolonial. However, this influence becomes subdued

upon analysis of the housing projects led by Fry and Drew. Their careful consideration of

community needs facilitated the design of climate conscious school, hospitals and housing to

promote education and health through architecture. A healthier, more educated society is less

dependent on more powerful former colonisers; thus, Drew and Fry’s work be considered

decolonial.

Neocolonial aspects of the project resurface with reference to Le Corbusier’s Capitol

Complex buildings. Whilst the use of concrete creates the opportunity for expressive design

that reflects the Indian identity, the opportunity remains unfulfilled as the buildings, whilst

monumental, lack harmony with Indian culture and values. The imposition of Western
modernism is apparent through the priority of exaggerated forms as well as functionality and

efficiency through construction processes. This does not fit the idea of decolonialism that Fry

and Drew achieved. Nonetheless, the fact that these were government institutions means Le

Corbusier’s work can be seen to facilitate a political decolonisation through its

monumentality symbolising India’s advancement and modernisation, enabling the state to

receive recognition as a partner and/or competitor, establishing autonomy on the global stage.

Therefore, underlying neocolonialism in Chandigarh is overshadowed by the decolonial

efforts through Fry and Drew’s community considerations and Le Corbusier’s

monumentality, establishing the status of the government.