SHAPING INDIA’S CITIES

THE CHANGING ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS IN CONSTRUCTION

SINCE INDEPENDENCE (1947)

Sarah Melsens1 and Inge Bertels2

Keywords
India, economic liberalization, urban architecture, the changing role of the professions in
construction, twentieth century, construction sector

Abstract
In India’s transition from a socialist to a neoliberal economy in the second half of the
twentieth century responsabilities among the stakeholders in the construction sector have
changed significantly and new actors have emerged. Broadly these stakeholders are patrons,
consultants (architects, engineers, etc.) and executors (construction contractors, craftsmen and
material suppliers).
Building on data collected from contemporary professional journals, this paper analyses the
impact of these stakeholders on the architectural quality of everyday buildings in Indian cities. In
particular the effects of non-equipotent stakeholders on the typological diversity and tectonic
intricacy of urban architecture are revealed.
The argument is that this is the result of the inability of architects and skilled building
craftsmen to establish themselves as influential professionals in the formal construction sector.
The paper demonstrates how India’s colonial legacy combined with recent laissez-faire
capitalism has contributed to this situation.

1
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (V.U.B.), Department of Architectural Engineering, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels,
Belgium, sarah.melsens@vub.ac.be.
University of Pune, Department of Sociology, Ambedkar Bhavan, University of Pune campus, 411 007 Pune, India.
BRICK School of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Survey No. 50 / 3 Undri, Pisoli, Pune, India.
Supported by Gustave Boel – Sofina fellowship 2014, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek - Vlaanderen.
2
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (V.U.B.), Department of Architectural Engineering, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels,
Belgium, inge.bertels@vub.ac.be.

5th International Congress on Construction History

Shaping India’s cities: the changing role of stakeholders in construction since independence (1947)

INTRODUCTION
Post-independence architecture in India (post 1947) is characterized by a select number of
exceptional achievements amidst a sprawling sea of poor quality design and construction, which
has increasingly become repetitive. Naturally the discourse in architectural magazines and books
on architecture in India has focused on the exemplary projects. While critics bemoan the poor
quality architecture pervading the country (e.g. Bhatia 1986, Burte 1994), this problem is rarely
the subject of academic research. This paper hence specifically focuses on common practices in
the ‘formal’ construction sector, which materialize in everyday architecture of the cities and
towns. The hypothesis is that architectural quality is not merely a passive response to the demand
of the users, but rather the result of changes in the network of stakeholders in construction. The
two main periods researched are the first decades after independence when India launched a huge
effort of nation building, and the period after economic growth and liberalization starting in the
1980s. The following questions are addressed: Who were the stakeholders in urban construction
before and after economic liberalization? What were their responsibilities? How did they deem
their role affected architectural quality? The situation of the construction sector in British India is
also referred to because this majorly influenced the subsequent modes of operation.
This research is built on a survey of two periodicals: The ‘Journal of the Indian Institute of
Architects’ published by the Indian Institute of Architects and ‘Indian Construction’ published
by the Builders Association of India. Both magazines are issued in English, an official language
after India’s independence. The ‘Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects’ was published as a
quarterly upto 1991 after which the editions became more regular (on average 9 issues a year)
and monthly since the year 2000. Editions from 1968 till 2000 were studied and provided data
from the architect’s viewpoint, while often commenting on other stakeholders in the sidelines.
Over this time period, the reoccurring subjects relevant to this study are firstly, the discussion on
the role and tasks of the architect vis a vis those of other stakeholders, and secondly, the differ-
ences between architects active in the private versus public sector. Both matters have appeared to
be closely linked with the role of engineers in construction. Since the 1980s writing on the im-
pact of additional stakeholders in construction such as the ‘vastu consultant’ (offering design
services based on brahmanical principles) and real estate developer stands out. ‘Indian Construc-
tion’, the journal of the Builders Association of India has provided the contractor and engineer-
contractor’s perspective in its editions from 1980 to 2000. In the 1980s the state’s influence on
construction − through material licensing, tendering conditions and preferential treatment of pub-
lic construction contractors − figures prominently in the journal while in the 1990s the effects of
privatization and globalization are addressed. Given India’s colonial history, comparisons with
the professions in construction in Britain are drawn based on parallel inspiring studies (Wilton-
Ely 1977 and Saint 1983).

THE ROLE OF DESIGNERS: ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS

The ‘art-architect’ and ‘engineer-manager’: a colonial legacy
In the mid nineteenth century, the first decades of British India, military engineers were in
charge of construction. Their responsibilities entailed not only of infrastructure works such as
railways, roads and water canals but also the design and construction of public buildings. Engi-
neers who served at the Indian Public Works Department (PWD), an organization set up to con-
struct public buildings in the important cities, were trained in the typical engineering subjects,

5th International Congress on Construction History

 S. Melsens and I. Bertels

but also in architectural design, surveying, accounts, Hindi, and in the history and geography of
India (Farrington 1976). Some of these ‘architect-engineers’ at the PWDs produced remarkable
buildings in Gothic or Classic style, now and then assimilated with Indian motifs as a ‘compro-
mise’.
Roles started changing when by the end of the nineteenth century the first ‘professional ar-
chitects’ arrived in India to design the most prestigious public buildings. By this time architects
in Britain where distancing themselves from the early professional architects who where respon-
sible for both design and supervision and as such supposedly acted as an impartial agent between
client and construction contractor (Wilton-Ely 1977). Now, many British architects limited their
scope of work to that of what Saint called the ‘art-architect’. The art-architect designed while the
practical architect would carry out and superintend (Saint 1983). In colonial India too, these ex-
ecutive tasks were often delegated, not to architects but to the PWD engineers. There are ac-
counts of architectural designs generated by architects on the British Isles and getting built in
India without the architect ever being present on the site. The PWD engineers managed costs,
supervised the work and took necessary decisions on site (Vaidya 1988).
These new roles −the architect as an artist rather than a construction team leader and the en-
gineer as a construction manager rather than a designer− were transferred to the western edu-
cated Indians in the training institutes established in India. The first engineering colleges
emerged in the mid nineteenth century at places where major civil works were taking place. They
mostly provided training for site supervisors, quantity surveyors, mechanics, and similar types of
‘engineering assistants’ (The Imperial Gazetteer of India). The humanistic and architectural ap-
proach to engineering that was imbibed to PWD engineers in Britain was lost: the ‘engineer-
manager’ prevailed over the engineer as designer.
The first school of architecture similarly emerged from a drafting school for architectural assis-
tants in Bombay around 1913 (Fernandes 1967). Its location in a prosperous city however nour-
ished its rapid transition to a dignified, artistic school of architecture that attracted both European
and wealthy Indian students. The architect in Bombay’s high society enjoyed “a certain status ...
and commanded respect” (Parelkar 1967). Preferably, he would employ structural engineers,
quantity surveyors and site supervisors for the technical tasks (Dallas and Fernandes 1942).
Building the Indian nation: birth of the ‘copycat architect’ and engineer-contractor
In the first three decades after Independence (1947) the socialist state was the major patron
for construction activity. Construction work for government departments (military, railways,
public works, development authorities) and public sector undertakings (in telecom, aviation,
hospitality, banking, housing etc.) was handled by in-house design offices and sometimes even
built by in-house construction branches. Public bodies, only for their most prestigious projects,
sporadically organized design competitions or project based collaborations with consultant archi-
tects. Quite soon the architects’ community criticized the poor quality of most state-built build-
ings (e.g. Bhalla 1967). In 1983 this problem impels even Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to ex-
press concern (JIIA 1986) and it gradually gets acknowledgment from within public administra-
tion itself (Sharma 1983). Architectural discourse in the ‘Journal of Indian Institute of Archi-
tects’ points out three interrelated reasons for this lack of quality.
A first reason is the shortage of government-employed architects, both in relation to the
workload and in relation to the number of government-employed engineers. In 1947 India
counted only a few hundred architects while there were about 5000 degree-level engineers and
thousands of technically trained construction assistants (Indian National Science Academy
2001). The shortage of architects resulted in time pressure in the design stage: “Pressed for time

5th International Congress on Construction History

Shaping India’s cities: the changing role of stakeholders in construction since independence (1947)

the public design offices produce routine stereotype designs without adequate studies related to
user requirements, functional efficiency and cost effectiveness of the designs, not to mention
aesthetic and environmental values. A common practice in public design offices is to develop
standard plans for almost all needs and palm them off for any project without consideration of
site conditions and project specific requirements.” (Sharma 1983)
Secondly, architects employed by government organizations were generally in subordinate
positions to the engineers who were responsible for site supervision, specifications and cost
management. This led to significant changes between the envisaged designs and the buildings
actually realized. Even Buckminster Fuller, who was invited to design three airport terminals
“talked of how the engineers in Bombay had doubled the number of supports and columns to
make it more congested than his original design” (JIIA 1979). Though this role division can be
attributed to the skewed number of architects compared to engineers, it was probably even more
a legacy of the colonial engineer-manager and art-architect.
A third reason indicated is that, given the above working conditions, only the type of archi-
tects who prefer economically secure government jobs and social benefits over professional qual-
ity, would aspire to work for the government (Sharma 1983). Although about 40 to 50% of prac-
ticing architects worked for the government (Valavalkar 1984), it became increasingly difficult
to fill in vacant positions, which were rapidly taken up by engineers (Das 1978). The art-
architect preferred private practice because the architect in government service tended to become
merely a ‘copycat’ architect. This remarkably differs from the period of public works in UK at
the beginning of the ‘70s, when the finest architecture graduates flocked to municipal depart-
ments and the commercial architects in private sector were looked down on (Nicholson 1996).
An interesting Indian public sector undertaking that succeeded however, in finding the balance
between good quality architecture yet cost-efficiency, is the Life Insurance Corporation (L.I.C.).
What about the architectural quality under private patronage? Unfortunately it was not able
to produce a counter-movement to the general state of public architecture. Not merely architects,
but also engineers, general contractors and surveyors could obtain the municipal license neces-
sary for planning permission. Many of them called themselves architects although they lacked an
architect’s holistic training (Gupta & Datta 1971). Economic adversities such as inflation, scar-
city of construction materials and administrative hurdles to private patronage restricted the flour-
ishing of the private construction sector and its consultancy services. Engineers in the private
sector coped with these circumstances by diversifying their activities and many offered total de-
sign and/or construction services rather than practicing only as structural designers (Achar 1987).
The Indian engineer’s managerial history supported this diversification. The architect, however
much he wanted to be in charge of the construction team, could not challenge this prevalence of
the engineer-contractor (Kumar 1971).
The inability of architects to establish themselves as equipotent stakeholders in the construc-
tion industry influenced the qualities of mainstream architecture from this period. It is character-
ized by the replication of mediocre space configurations, and by minimal tectonic detailing.
Concrete-frame, masonry-infill structures with flat roofs are the lowest common denominator.
Facades are mostly plastered, although sometimes, stone masonry is apparent. Windows typi-
cally have concrete lintels, called ‘Chajjas’, which protrude out of the façade to provide shade
and protection from rain, one of the only features that relates to the climate conditions.
Retreat of the state, rise of the commercial architect
The mid 1980s, when India’s economy started showing significant growth proved to be criti-
cal for the further course of architecture. The resurgence of the private construction sector, to-

5th International Congress on Construction History

 S. Melsens and I. Bertels

gether with an increased housing demand of the growing middle-class brought a new stakeholder
to power: the real-estate developer. Turnkey apartment towers mushroomed, steadily replacing
housing provision initiated by individual clients or housing cooperatives. With the liberalization
of the economy in the 1990s these developers added malls, and large office buildings for new
service industries to their scope. These are by far the three dominant architectural typologies in
recent urban areas. In the mean time building patronage by the public sector turned to a low
pitch, unfortunately just as the involvement of private sector for consultancy had gained support.
Public sector companies were outcompeted by the private sector and didn’t expand, while the
Public Work Departments’ priorities shifted from public buildings to traffic infrastructure to
stimulate growth.
These events were reflected in the occurrence of three new topics of discussion in the ‘Jour-
nal of the Indian Institute of Architects’ and ‘Indian Construction’. Firstly, architects claimed
their profession was getting commercialized. With the advent of the developer sale profit was to
be taken into account, often at the expense of user concerns. The general public and other
stakeholders in the construction sector perceived the ‘commercial-architects’ working for devel-
opers mainly as façade designers. One developer confidently admitted: “There is not much free-
dom to show the talent of the architect. The main reason being size of plots, municipal rules, and
rising cost of materials. ‘Good elevations with maximum inside amenities’ are our aim to keep
cost under control” (Patki 1988). Hafeez Contractor, one of Mumbai’s leading commercial-
architects confirmed this when he said that his architecture was only 2’6” deep, since the rest of
the plan was determined by the building bylaws and developers (Chauhan 1996). Not only the
architect’s role as ‘designer’ but also his role as a ‘team leader’ is further undermined now that
the patron is himself a construction professional (though often not trained in the field) appointing
and managing the team. Comparatively, the commercial architects’ that had emerged in UK in
the building boom of the ‘60s seemed far more entrepreneurial and less subordinate (Saint 1983).
A second concern expressed by architects is not only that those architects on the pay roll of a
developer are induced to produce poor quality but in some cases even to violate building bylaws
(Sharma 1986). In 2001 a minister claimed that a staggering ninety percent of buildings con-
structed in the 1990s in Ahmedabad, one of India’s largest cities, where either illegal or unau-
thorized or violated building codes or norms in some way or the other (Kirtee 2009). It is for
example common practice for architects to design technical shafts and balconies (spaces which
are not counted in maximum floor space area allowed) in such a way that they can later illegally
be enclosed to the outside and appropriated within the apartments’ private area. Builders are in-
stigating clients to do this, with all consequences on the architecture (Indian Construction 1985).
Thirdly, since the mid 1990s another perceived threat to the architect’s profession is the re-
vival of ‘vastu shashtra’, the ancient Hindu knowledge on how to build in optimal relation to the
cosmos. Amongst much more, it contains guidelines for the suitable orientation of kitchen, en-
trance doors and washrooms in the house for optimal well-being. The so-called ‘vastu consult-
ants’, mostly con artists, offer their (re)design services to laymen often after having related per-
sonal problems experienced by an inhabitant to the design of the existing dwelling he or she in-
habits. Architects claim this intrusion on their domain and abuse of ancient knowledge was only
possible because Indian architects themselves have lost the connection to Indian architectural
history due to colonialism and westernized architectural education thereafter (Deshpande 1995).
Unsurprisingly under the above circumstances architectural tectonics were governed by the
attempt to save costs yet provide a ‘saleable packaging’. Concrete-frame, masonry-infill struc-
tures are disguised in plaster rendering (housing) or glass and aluminium cladding (malls and
offices), which allow masking bad quality construction. In the typical apartment towers of the

5th International Congress on Construction History

Shaping India’s cities: the changing role of stakeholders in construction since independence (1947)

1990s the Chajjaas −sunshades above the windows− have disappeared. Life is added to the build-
ings by superficially painting different parts of the façade in different colors. Optimization of
construction cost and saleable floor surface under existing building bylaws universally leads to a
central, offset position of the building on the site and compound walls between the street and
building. The building is supported on columns at ground level to accommodate shaded parking.
The streetscapes hence created are far inferior to the ones in the older urban areas.
What happened to the art-architect after the economy flourished? His patronage shifted from
state organizations and the middle class to the elite: upper class private clients, sophisticated
large companies and private institutions.

CONSTRUCTORS: FROM MASTER BUILDERS TO CASUAL LABOUR

The survey of the ‘Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects’ and ‘Indian Construction’ sup-
plied an outline of the evolution of patronage and the practice of design consultants. When it
comes to the executors −the ones who actually build− it did not allow us to trace such a complete
picture. We know that by the first decades of the twentieth century colonial construction tender-
ing was negotiated under a lump sum and the general contractor was well established in large
cities. Some became very successful and even offered the supply of plans included in the lump
sum, much to the frustration of architects (Batley, Dallas 1940). It is unclear though whether
these general contractors were former ‘Mistries’ − hereditary master builders who’s lineage goes
back to Vedic times − and/or Indian entrepreneurs from outside the construction field attracted
by business opportunities. The British prescribed local materials but western construction tech-
niques, which changed the course of building practices in many parts of India.
After Independence, reinforced concrete, promoted by Le Corbusier in Chandigarh, became
popular for architectural projects. As a specialty of engineer-contractors concrete construction
made building activity more labor oriented as against craft oriented. Labor was less and less from
a traditional construction background and more and more temporary or casual. Many farmers for
example used to work in construction during the lean agricultural season (Rangan 1988). With
growth of the private construction industry in the ‘80s contractors set up training programs for
‘construction project managers’. These would bid, procure material and machinery and manage
labor. By contrast, formal training or qualifications for construction workers seem to have only
limited success upon today. With the increase in scale of developer-led projects to entire satellite
towns many developers are now also contractors. The profile of the developer remains to be in-
vestigated. It is unclear whether contractors also became real-estate developers, as has been the
case in Europe.
While it is likely that the neglect of certain types of skilled labor has contributed to an im-
poverished architectural quality, further research is required to sustain this argument. The work
of professor Linda Clarke on construction labor in Europe can provide clues as to how such re-
search can be undertaken via bottom-up approach and using various sources other than literature
(interviews, video archives, oral histories).

CONCLUSION
In post-independence India the state was a major patron for construction of buildings until
the 1990s. As to private patronage, only a rather small middle class and the few rich used to
commission housing and commercial buildings for their own use. Since the 1990s however pri-
vate patronage and more specifically the real-estate promoters have gained overall supremacy.
This limited variety in patrons, each commissioning their preferential typologies, together with

5th International Congress on Construction History

 S. Melsens and I. Bertels

the use of established space layouts has lead to a sparse typological diversity in urban architec-
ture.
Moreover, it has been shown that the encroachment upon the architect’s role as designer and
construction team leader by actors such as engineers, real-estate investors and vastu-consultants,
has harmed the reputation of the profession and contributed to poor tectonic intricacy, architec-
tural uniformity and indifference to context of mainstream urban architecture. Similarly, there
are indications that the influence of skilled craftsmen on architecture has been discouraged by the
entry of civil engineers and real-estate developers in the contracting business.
Perhaps the time period of 55 years between colonialism and neoliberalism was too short for
the Indian state to rectify the adverse inheritances of colonialism, and find an effective role as
patron and regulator of the construction industry. In the 1980s, just when the state recognized the
architectural and economic benefit of hiring consultants for its construction projects, the art-
architects and structural engineers acquired new patronage from the upper class private clients,
with probably a more straightforward construction process. While the typical projects in which
‘art-architects’ were able to leave their mark before economic liberalization were mostly major
public buildings or institutional campuses, in recent decades exemplary architecture has
increasingly become private: lavish holiday houses or private office campuses carefully
protected from their mediocre urban surroundings and the general public. Hence, architectural
quality has become even less perceivable in the urban landscape. The current laissez faire
attitude of the state, in its retreat from patronizing buildings but also in its receptiveness to
powerful lobby’s such as that of the real-estate developers, hampers positive developments in the
construction industry. As one architect suggested in the ‘80s, perhaps architects should (have)
become more involved in contracting and real estate development.

REFERENCES
Achar, N.R., 1987. “Looking back, looking around and looking ahead.” Indian Construction,
20:10 (5-7).
Batley, Claude and Dallas, H.N., 1940. “The architect’s services.” Journal of the Indian Insti-
tute of Architects, April.
Bhalla, J.R. 1967. “Presidential address.” Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects,
33:10,11,12. (2-5).
Bhatia, Gautam. 1986. “Building an ugly and ordinary India” Journal of the Indian Institute of
Architects, 51:7,8,9. (25).
Burte, Himanshu.1994. “Architecture in the time of conspicuous consumption.” Journal of the
Indian Institute of Architects, 59:9. (25-27).
Chauhan, Akhtar. 1996. “Towards appropriateness in architecture.” Journal of the Indian In-
stitute of Architects, 61:7. (4-13).
Dallas H. N. and Fernandes, J. B. 1942. “Report of the Council of IIA to the Bombay House
collapse Inquiry committee” Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, reproduced in
60:10,11,12. (31-34).
Das, Arun Kumar. 1978. “Editorial” Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, 40:1. (5).
Deshpande, Shireesh A. 1995. “vastu, yesterday and the day before!” Journal of the Indian In-
stitute of Architects, 60:1. (32-33).

5th International Congress on Construction History

Shaping India’s cities: the changing role of stakeholders in construction since independence (1947)

Farrington, Anthony. 1976. The Records of the East India College, Haileybury, & other insti-
tutions. London: H.M.S.O. (135–51).
Fernandes, J.B., 1967. “Brief history of the I.I.A.” Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects,
Golden Jubilee number.
Gupta D.N. and Datta, A.K. 1971. “Editorial – The architects’ bill 1970” Journal of the Indian
Institute of Architects, 37:1.
Indian National Science Academy. 2001. Pursuit and promotion of science the Indian Experi-
ence. INSA
Kirtee, Shah. 2009. “Architects and architectural practice in India: some imperatives.” Ar-
chitexturez South Asia Web. 28 Jan 2015. http://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-166148
Kumar, Vijay. 1971. “Indian architecture – A survey.” Journal of the Indian Institute of Archi-
tects, 37:1. (34-35).
Nicholson, Robin. 1996. “New dimensions to the architectural profession.” Journal of the
Indian Institute of Architects, 61:3. (30-35).
Parelkar, K.A. 1967. “My experience in the profession.” Journal of the Indian Institute of Ar-
chitects, Golden Jubilee number.
Patki, S.Y. 1988. “Interview - Pramod Talwalkar.” Patwardhan, N.R. ed. All India seminar on
construction and sale of ownership flats, December 17 & 18 1988, The institution of engi-
neers (India), Pune Local Centre.
Rangan, R.K. 1988. “Unsung heroes of history.” Indian Construction, 21:10. (49-51).
Saint, Andrew. 1983. The image of the architect. New Haven and London: Yale University
Press.
Sharma, S.K. 1983. “Architectural management – An essential environmental need.” Journal
of the Indian Institute of Architects, 48:7,8,9. (14-17).
1986. “Public architecture and the profession.” Journal of the Indian Institute of
Architects, 51:1. (17-19).
Vaidya, S.R. 1988. “To be a government architect.” Journal of the Indian Institute of Archi-
tects, 53:2. (31).
Valavalkar, R.M. 1984 “Problems faced by the self-employed and employed architects.”
Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, 49:1. (9-10).
Wilton-Ely, John. 1977. “The rise of the professional architect in England.” S. Kostof ed. The
architect: Chapters in the history of the profession, New York: Oxford Univeristy Press.
1908-1931. The Imperial Gazetteer of India. v.21, (325). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
1979. “News and comment” Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, 45: 2. (6-7).
1985. “Pune Centre, Association’s constructive role” Indian Construction. 18:8. (19-20).
1986. “DO Letter No.45(39)/83 PMS dated the 30th July, 1983 from Principal secretary to the
Prime Minister to the Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing.” Journal of the Indian In-
stitute of Architects, 51:7,8,9. (16).

5th International Congress on Construction History