When India gained independence in 1947, the nation faced a decision that would determine the course of its architectural future: brick or concrete. A seemingly mundane choice of material was rooted in a deeper philosophical divide between two potential outcomes for post-colonial India's built environment. Pioneering figures in India's struggle for independence held opposing views - Mahatma Gandhi advocated for traditional craftsmanship while Jawaharlal Nehru embraced modernism. The architecture one sees in the subcontinent today is a mosaic of both, begging the question: was modernism in India a foreign imposition or a celebrated import?
The British, upon colonizing India, set in force modernist architectural principles in the forms of stark geometric forms and stripped-down aesthetics, a stark contrast to the regions elaborate and ornamental traditional buildings. Government buildings, railway stations, and administrative centers were symbols of colonial power, their modernist vocabulary serving as a visual reminder of British authority.
Colonial powers wielded modernist architecture as a "civilizing" force, presenting it as the embodiment of rationality and progress while implicitly—and sometimes explicitly—casting traditional Indian architecture as excessive and backward. The rejection of ornamentation, a cornerstone of modernist philosophy, struck at the heart of Indian art and craft. While European modernists like Le Corbusier preached "less is more," vernacular Indian architecture had always understood that ornamentation was more than decoration—it was a language. Carved details and geometric patterns carried cultural meanings and sacred symbolism. The colonial dismissal of these elements as superfluous effectively silenced centuries of architectural narrative.
Related Article
Learnings from Collective Housing in IndiaThis architectural subjugation was particularly evident in the planning of New Delhi by Edwin Lutyens. While Lutyens incorporated some Indian elements, he fundamentally transformed them, toning down traditional ornamentation to create what he considered a more civilized interpretation. The Indo-Saracenic style offered a template for the uncomfortable hybrids that would follow.
The impact of this architectural colonization extended far beyond the colonial period. Post-independence Indian architects, educated in modernist principles, often continue to hold onto colonial architectural values. While political independence had been achieved, architectural expression remained colonized.
Post-independence, India's first Prime Minister Nehru's modernist vision initially dominated India's architectural landscape. The commissioning of Le Corbusier to design Chandigarh—the new capital of Punjab—marked a decisive embrace of modernist principles. However, what emerged wasn't simply a transplantation of European modernism. Instead, practical limitations and cultural preferences created something entirely new.
Concrete, the material symbol of this modernist vision, reveals this transformation. While favored for its associations with progress and its ability to house refugees quickly after Partition, its implementation took on distinctly local characteristics. Transportation limitations made off-site mass production impractical. Instead, India's abundance of manual labor led to on-site, hand-crafted construction—transforming industrial processes into a form of craftwork. Unlike the harsh Brutalist architecture of Europe, South Asian modernism often carried a more human touch.
However, the embrace of modernism came at a cost. Traditional building crafts and knowledge systems, already marginalized under colonial rule, found themselves further sidelined in the rush toward modernization. The emphasis on industrial materials and construction techniques meant that centuries-old building traditions faced obsolescence.
This complex relationship with modernism created what scholar Vikramaditya Prakash calls a "double bind." Post-colonial India found itself caught between two competing imperatives: the need to be authentically "Indian" and the desire to participate in global modernity. However, in practice, this tension often produced creative solutions rather than paralysis.
The question is no longer whether modernism was imposed or invited—it was clearly both—but rather how to move forward with this mixed inheritance. Contemporary architects in the region are finding new ways to engage with this legacy, creating works that acknowledge both the promises and failures of modernism while forging new paths. The path forward requires more than simply incorporating traditional elements into modern buildings or rejecting modernism entirely. True architectural decolonization demands understanding modernism as part of South Asia's own historical narrative—with all its contradictions and complexities. This includes questioning not just the assumed superiority of modernist principles but also simplistic calls for return to tradition.
India's experience with modernism demonstrates how architectural ideas transform as they travel across cultures. Rather than being passive recipients of European modernism, countries like India actively reinterpreted and reimagined modernist principles through local conditions and needs. The result wasn't a poor imitation of European modernism, but rather a unique architectural expression that realized modernist ideals in a holistic sense.
This article is part of an ArchDaily series titled India: Building for Billions, where we discuss the effects of population rise, urbanization, and economic growth on India's built environment. Through the series, we explore local and international innovations responding to India's urban growth. We also talk to the architects, builders, and community, seeking to underline their personal experiences. As always, at ArchDaily, we highly appreciate the input of our readers. If you think we should feature a certain project, please submit your suggestions.
This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: 100 Years of Modernism. Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us.
