Abstract
The narrative of Indian industrialization is unique, a country that is both industrializing and de-industrializing simultaneously and that is struggling in the discovery of its own identity within the myriad political, ethnic, social and economic discourses. The massive push given to industry in this contemporary era has a definitive impact on the urban landscape. The contemporary political economy is in the process of disinvestment of State assets, which are cornerstones of the narratives of Indian industrialization, their loss and comprehensive redevelopment have a significant impact on place identity in urban areas. While the idea of urban heritage conservation is very nascent, the concept of industrial heritage conservation is largely non-existent in India.
The industrial timeline of India is different from the global timeline; the lack of an official definition, and therefore a lack of an official legislation, for recognition and legal protection of industrial sites in India has an impact on the perception of what constitutes Indian industrial heritage. Most industrial heritage sites are vulnerable to loss or replacement on the pretext of being considered too ordinary to be preserved.
This article presents a chronological narrative of industrialization and defines a framework for identifying typologies of industrial heritage sites in the Indian context, building a case for recognizing, protecting and sustainable development.
Keywords
Introduction
Urbanization has been recognized as a direct consequence of industrialization, availability of industrial building materials like steel, glass and concrete, and the creation of transportation networks such as the railways led to the development of new urban form for industrial townships, suburbs and cities in the nineteenth and twentieth century (Carmona et al., 2003; Freeman, 2019). India’s urban population is estimated to be 400 million by 2030, with 40 per cent living in cities (Chen et al., 2018). Industrialization of India is an ongoing process and a unique juxtaposition of simultaneous industrialization and deindustrialization.
The concept of industrial heritage developed in the 1960s in Europe and America and is still very nascent industry in India. Most studies on India’s industrialization have focused on the economic aspects, as well as the sociopolitical narratives of the industrial past, and are case specific. The first and most seminal research on industrial heritage in the Indian context has been the Charles Correa Committee Report (1996) for the Government of Maharashtra, that highlighted the potential for reuse and reintegration of mill lands into the city’s fabric (D’Monte, 2005; Douet, 2016; Mieg & Oevermann, 2014). While two industrial heritage sites, Mountain Railways of India (Darjeeling Himalayan Railway 1999, Nilgiri Mountain Railway 2005 and Kalka Shimla Railway 2008) and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (Victoria Terminus 2004) are represented on the World Heritage List, most of the other sites are unrecognized and unprotected (World Heritage Centre, 2021). The comprehensive studies on the identification and valorization of India’s industrial heritage are still nascent and under production by experts’ groups such as TICCIH and ICOMOS India (Joshi, 2020). Some of the industrial heritage sites that have been identified and protected as heritage at the local level are case specific. The lack of an official definition, and consequently the lack of an official legislation, for recognition and legal protection of industrial sites in India has an impact on the perception of what constitutes Indian industrial heritage.
With the current economic climate of disinvestment in State owned industries and assets (Times of India, 2021), industrial heritage finds itself threatened by loss primarily due to a lack of recognition for being significant in the narrative of India’s industrialization. Industrial heritage is therefore sited at the intersection of an ongoing debate between comprehensive redevelopment versus heritage conservation in the current political economy (Indorewala, 2020; Mehrotra, 2021).
This article attempts to develop a timeline of industrial heritage in the Indian context based on a thematic mapping of industrial heritage sites (built heritage) in the Indian context. The thematic mapping presented as part of this study, forms a base for further research, identification as well as sustainable development of industrial heritage sites in India.
Methodology
Based on a thorough literature review, pilot case studies, peer and focus group discussions as well as expert interviews, a thematic framework has been developed for classification of industrial heritage sites in India. A chronological analysis was conducted to establish the timeline of industrial development in India to understand the intrinsic relationship between industrialization and urbanization. Based on the literature survey a preliminary mapping of typologies of industrial heritage sites in India was carried out on an open-source Google Map. The primary criteria adopted for the inclusion of a site in the first mapping have been the following:
Association with a major historical or political event in the development of India The beginning of a new typology of industrial heritage in India, the first of many Representative of the advancement in scale and technology of industry in India Representative of technical innovation during the time Designed by a famous architect as a showpiece of Indian industrialization Landmark quality that had a profound impact on urbanization of the city
This was further enhanced by a peer group mapping exercise through online consultation, this map is placed in the public domain at
Defining Industrial Heritage
The idea of industrial heritage conservation in itself is a paradox. The dramatic impact of industrialization on society, as well as the built and natural environment has been documented in visual, literary and other forms of arts. In the late nineteenth century in England, Romanticism as a philosophy developed as a reaction to urbanization and the Industrial Revolution. It laid an emphasis on emotion, individualism, glorification of the past and nature. Poets and writers such as William Wordsworth, John Keats, Jane Austen, William Blake and Charles Lamb wrote about the English landscape and their disdain for the factory and the world around it (Allen, 2009; Freeman, 2019). William Blake, in his poem Jerusalem (1804), made specific reference to England’s green pastured lands that were being desecrated by the ‘dark satanic mills’, referring to the factory (Allen, 2009; Berlanstein, 2003; Douet, 2016; Freeman, 2019).
The definition of industrial heritage is still evolving, having its beginnings in the domain of industrial archaeology during the 1960s, industrial archaeologists argued that the remains of industry hold immense material value and are representative of the industrial past, and advocate their protection as monuments. Industrial heritage can therefore be understood to encompass the physical remains from the microscale of the machinery and artefacts used in the process, to the buildings and structures erected for enabling the process of production (Bandarin & van Oers, 2014; Douet, 2016; Meurs & Steenhuis, 2017; Plevoets & Van Cleempoel, 2019). The sense of loss, devastation and depressed economic conditions led to the development of a sense of nostalgia around the glorious industrial past (Berger, 2020; Historic England, 2020). State sponsored cultural institutions and museums built on this nostalgia and captured the imaginations of the working class with narratives of progress, innovations in science and engineering and helped in building national identities (Harrison, 2009; Waterton & Smith, 2010). Severe economic decline left many industries threatened by obsolescence and closure, entire landscapes of extraction and production have largely disappeared or at risk, while knowledge and skills employed in the production process are in danger of being lost. Their associated close-knit communities having lost their raison d’etre have been diluted or dispersed leading to a sense of placelessness (Berger & High, 2019; Historic England, 2020). De-industrialization led to loss of jobs, increase in crime and degradation of large parts of the inner cities in Europe and America in the 1960s.
During the 1970s and 1980s as cities grew and sprawled, they creased to manifest a unified and shared identity, fragmenting itself into separate units. During the 1980s, political, social and economic crises led industries relocating from the main cities in Western Europe and America to the rural hinterland and later to the Third World Countries, many city centres and industrial areas became derelict. Similar conditions were created in Eastern Europe with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990 (Chen et al., 2018; Douet, 2016; Freeman, 2019; Jones & Evans, 2013). Buildings such as warehouses, different types of workshops, offices, housing for workers and officers, water towers, chimneys, etc., all the way up to the macrosale of entire ensembles of industrial villages, towns and landscapes that were built for the purpose of industry were considered as industrial heritage during the 1980s and 1990s leading to the popularity of the concept of loft living and apartments. In 1992, the World Heritage Convention introduced the concept of cultural landscapes, which are recognized as cultural properties that are combined works of nature and man; industrial landscapes including sites of agriculture, production, processing, workers housing and transport systems have been recognized as significant components of industrial heritage.
Current scholarship around industrial heritage maintains, the need to look beyond obsolescence and nostalgia to recognize industrial heritage as a source of social-economic development (Douet, 2016; TICCIH, 2020). Based on the aforementioned definitions of the Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage 2003 (TICCIH, 2003), The Dublin Principles (TICCIH, 2011) and the Taipei Declaration for Asian Industrial Heritage (TICCIH, 2012), I have defined industrial heritage in the Indian context as an ecosystem, a combination of tangible and intangible elements set within a spatial framework.
The tangible industrial heritage includes both urban and rural landscapes of extraction and production; the buildings that were built to house these processes of industrial systems of production as well as social activities such as housing, religious worship or education; engineering and transport infrastructure such as bridges, aqueducts, railway lines; machinery; corporate and company records and archives; and finally, products produced through the industrial process.
The intangible industrial heritage is vested within memories and oral histories as well as identities of people who worked in the industry; systems and ways of working as well as organizing labour; technical know-how and skills that worked the machinery and finally systems of management and written documentation. The most important aspect of intangible industrial heritage is the evolution of the way of life, an aesthetic that corresponds to what is considered to be industrial. When defining industrial heritage, the uncomfortable narratives of environmental degradation, pollution, ecological disasters as well as displacement of local communities too need to be considered as an integral part of the narrative and require further focused research.
The following diagram represents industrial heritage matrix in India (Figure 1).
Identifying Typologies of Industrial Heritage Sites in India
From the perspective of architecture and urbanism, the first three categories of tangible industrial heritage, namely landscapes, buildings and civil engineering, are primarily what constitute industrial architectural heritage. Based on the latest categorization of industrial heritage presented by Historic England (Historic England, 2020), thematic studies of industrial heritage sites by TICCIH (2020) and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) (National Park Service, 2020), I have categorized the industrial architectural heritage into the following categories (Table 1):
Mapping Architectural Industrial Heritage in India
The overall timeline of industrialization has been defined in four main periods namely pre-industrial (before 1700); proto-industrial (1700–1800); industrial (1800–1970) and post-industrial (1970–present). This global timeline is largely contextual to Western Europe and America. For developing an Indian perspective, this timeline needs to be further expanded based on India’s own industrial development history. Asian scholars have argued that the industrial period in Asia needs to be expanded to include the pre-industrial as well as post-industrial periods (TICCIH, 2012).
I have categorized the industrial period in India into three phases: (1) colonial (1700–1947); (2) post-independence (1947–1991); (3) post-liberalization (1991–present) and excluded the archaeological sites from the pre-industrial and proto-industrial periods (Figure 2).
The following section summarizes the relationship between industrialization, urbanization and heritage conservation in the Indian context, drawing on the global narrative.
Colonial (1700–1947)
In the Indian context, this period covers the overlapping global categories of proto-industrial and industrial periods. Technically, this period covers the historical periods of the Late Mughal (1700–1857) and British Crown (1857–1947), but for the purpose of this research, I have used the nomenclature of Colonial to define this period due to the intertwined role the Princely States as well as the East India Companies of the Dutch, French and English played in the narrative of Indian industrialization (Dwivedi et al., 1995; Lafont & Lafont, 2010; Morris & Winchester, 2005; Van Der Pol, 2014). India has been recognized as a wealthy country with a flourishing trade network with the rest of the world before its colonization; scholars have noted that during the seventeenth and eighteenth century, the GDP of the Mughal Empire was one of the highest in the world (Chenoy, 2004). During the proto-industrial period (seventeenth to nineteenth century), European trading ports of the Dutch, Portuguese, British and French were already established on Indian soil and trade in spices, silk, cotton and precious stones was flourishing (Bengal [India], 1914; Otis, 2018).
The colonization of the Indian subcontinent, however, had a profound effect on its industrialization and consequently its urbanization (Dwivedi et al., 1995; Evenson, 1989). As observed in the cities in Europe and America, industrialization led to migration of workers from the rural hinterland, this had an impact on the planning and spatial development of industrial cities, with the establishment of zones for industries, housing of the workers as well as transportation networks (Carmona et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2018; MacKenzie, 2019). In India, industrialization was largely concentrated around the three port cities of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The Provincial Governments, Municipality, Improvement Trusts, Port Trusts and private enterprise and trade shaped the growth of these cities. New typologies of housing, enterprises, hospitals, hotels, schools and institutions of governance led to the development of a brand-new way of living incorporating modern ways of transportation, electricity and sanitation (Dwivedi et al., 1995; Evenson, 1989; Mehrotra & Lambah, 2004).
Indian industrialization was fuelled by not only the British government, but also by private enterprise from Britain, Germany and the United States as well as home grown Indian entrepreneurs, such as the prominent members of the Parsi, Marwari and Gujarati community, such as Jamshedjee Tata, Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy, Walchand Hirachand, J. N. Petit Ghanshamdas Birla, Shri Ram, Ambalal Sarabhai and Kasturbhai Lalbhai, to name a few (Chaudhary et al., 2015; Dwivedi et al., 1995; Roy, 2018; Sen, 2019).
The primary industries established during this period in India were those of cotton, jute, tea and coal mining (Chaudhary et al., 2015). The first extraction site for coal was developed at Raniganj Coal Fields in Bengal in 1774. A key global event that led to the growth of industrialization in India was the American Civil War in 1861, which led to the blockage of ports in North America, increasing the demand for raw cotton from India which facilitated the development of the Railways connecting the port cities of Bombay Calcutta and Madras with the rural hinterland (Dwivedi et al., 1995).
With the politics of the Chinese tea trade, the British were keen to develop tea in India, the first tea plantation was developed in Assam in 1830 and other areas such as Darjeeling were developed to grow tea (Roy, 2018). The first jute mill was established at Rishra, Hooghly, in 1855 and India became the largest producer of Jute in the world in the second half of the nineteenth Century (Stewart, 1998). The area surrounding Calcutta was transformed into a jute producing belt with mills and private companies from the Britain, such as Jardine Skinner, George Henderson, Anderson Wright and Begg Dunlop, owning multiple enterprises and controlling the trade through the port of Calcutta (Chaudhary et al., 2015; Paul, 2012; Roy, 2018; Stewart, 1998). The first successful cotton textile mill opened in Bombay in 1854. The first woollen textile mill was established at Kanpur in 1876 and Kanpur became the hub for cotton and woollen textiles and leather (Roy, 2018). The first silk factory was established at Solina, Srinagar, in 1897 in the princely state of Kashmir.
The Swadeshi and Boycott movement, led to the burning of foreign made goods and gave impetus to native entrepreneurship. The first hydroelectric power plant was set up at Darjeeling in 1897. Many textile mills relocated from Bombay to other areas such as Ahmedabad due to proximity to the crop as well as availability of labour and better weather conditions for spinning and weaving of cloth. The first coffee plantation was developed in Karnataka in 1840. The first printing press was established at Serampore, West Bengal, in 1832.
The first Mint was set up in Calcutta in 1757. (Bengal [India], 1914; Dutta, 2003; Sen, 2019). Banks were private enterprises and were developed around the port cities as well as in the Princely States of India, the first bank (Imperial Bank) was established in Madras in 1843, Bank of Baroda was set up in 1908 and had branches in London, while the Punjab National Bank was set up in 1895 at Lahore. The Bombay Stock Exchange was established in 1875, while the Calcutta Stock Exchange was set up in 1908 (Chaudhary et al., 2015; Roy, 2018).
The postal services began in India in 1830 the General Post Office in Calcutta was established in 1868 and soon the network spread to the rest of the country, with the largest operations in Bombay and Madras (Dwivedi et al., 1995; Morris & Winchester, 2005).
The demand from the armed forces contributed to the development of several industries, such as iron and steel, cement, sugar, paper and textiles during World War II (WWII) (Chaudhary et al., 2015). The first sugar mill was established in 1903; the first successful paper mill was developed at Titagarh, West Bengal, in 1881; the first cement plant was built in Madras in 1904. The first iron and steel plant at Jamshedpur by Jamshedji Tata was set up in 1907 with collaboration from the United States. The Vishveshwaria Iron and Steel Works was set up at Burunpur in 1909.The first petroleum refinery was set up at Digboi, Assam, in 1901. The first chemical and fertilizer plant was set up in Ranipet in 1906. Private enterprises set up sugar factories in Maharashtra and United Provinces (Uttar Pradesh), textile mills in Bombay and Ahmedabad (Chaudhary et al., 2015; Roy, 2018).
WWII also had a great impact on India’s industrialization, the first aircraft manufacturing company was set up by Walchand Hirachand in Bangalore in 1940 under the name of Hindustan Aircraft Ltd with the technological support of the United States. The first aerodrome in India was set up at Juhu in Bombay in 1928 and the Willingdon Airport (Safdurjung Airport) in 1929, which also played a key role in the WWII. Walchand Hirachand also built the first shipyard (Scindia Shipyard) at Vishakhapatnam in 1940 (Chaudhary et al., 2015; Roy, 2018).
The first radio stations were set up in Bombay and Calcutta in 1927 by the Broadcasting Company Ltd and were taken over by the Government as All India Radio in 1936. At the time of Independence AIR had six radio stations in Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Trichy and Lucknow while Hyderabad had its own Deccan Radio under the Princely State. Bombay Telephone was founded in 1882 and Delhi in 1911 (Desai, 2006; Roy, 2018). Technical education was given a push with the establishment of the Thomason Engineering College at Roorkee in 1847 for training native engineers, while the JJ School of Art was established in 1857 and Mayo College of Industrial Arts in Lahore in 1875.
Post-Independence (1947–1991)
Post-independence, India adopted a mixed economy model of development, with emphasis on the modernization and industrialization to become self-sufficient and reduce reliance on imports. The Soviet model of five-year plans were adopted as a planning tool towards industrialization. The industrial policy saw the increased role of the State and a reduced role of the world economy through restrictions on cross border capital and buying technology from abroad through collaboration (Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020; Roy, 2018). The private sector was restricted to some of the traditional sectors such as textiles, tea, sugar, coal mining and automobiles.
The protective industrialization cast in the first five-year plan (1951–1956) focused on agriculture and with social services (housing, schools and clinics). The second five-year plan (1956–1961) laid emphasis on industrialization with public sector investment in steel, power and heavy industry (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015; Sury et al., 2008;). Transport and communication were a key sector in both the plans. Through its Central and State Public Works Departments, the State took on the role of the designer and developer of urban development of its institutional buildings, government housing, steel plants and their associated townships (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015).
The State nationalized aviation, shipping, railways, telecommunications and oil refineries. The first atomic energy institute was set up at Trombay in 1954, later renamed the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in 1967. The setting up of state-owned steel plants at Durgapur, Bhilai and Rourkela was undertaken under Hindustan Steel Ltd in 1959 with technical collaboration from West Germany, United States and United Kingdom (Roy, 2018). The Indian Telephone Industries (ITI) was formed in 1948 to make telecommunication equipment (Subramanian, 2017). Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) was set up in 1953 at Bangalore as was the Heavy Engineering Corporation in 1958. The first TV tower was set up in Delhi in 1959 (Roy, 2018). The key players in the private sector were the industrial houses such as Tatas, Birlas and Godrej, who continued to gain prominence. The automobile sector was dominated by the private sector with Hindustan Motors (Birlas) established in 1942 at Hindmotor, Calcutta, Premier Automobiles (Walchand Hirachand) established in 1944 at Kurla, Bombay and Standard Motors established in 1951 at Madras (Roy, 2018).
Industry was to be the ‘new temples’ of politically and ideologically liberated modern India (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015), this vision of Jawaharlal Nehru was physically translated into the industrial townships were designed as self-sufficient units set up with foreign collaboration, providing employment as well as a new form of living and better quality of working. This progress encouraged migration from the rural hinterlands to the newly developed townships and communities. Architecturally, this period coincided with the global rise of Modernism and the widespread comprehensive redevelopment of historic areas. Indian architects (most having been trained in Europe or America) and planners worked with foreign collaborators from the United States, Britain and Germany. All landmark buildings and sites therefore, attempted to build a new architectural idiom that was a break from the traditional such as the designs for the Ahmedabad Textile Industry’s research Association and Physical Research Laboratories designed by Achyut Kanvinde. Joseph Allen Stein designed the new industrial township for workers and managers at Rourkela in association with Benjamin Polk and Binoy Chatterjee (Lang et al., 2000; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015). The utopian idea that industrialization would transform the Indian building industry and create mass-produced, affordable housing was put to test (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015).
The third five-year plan (1961–1966) saw further focus on industrialization of heavy industry, steel, power, fuel, chemicals and machine building (Sury et al., 2008). The political instability due to the two wars with China in 1962 and Pakistan 1965 coupled with the drought of 1965 had a severe impact on industry and the economy. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. (BHEL) was set up in 1964 and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. started making railway coaches and mining equipment (Roy, 2018). The State nationalized the petroleum sector and set up collaboration with Burmah Shell and Caltex (Roy, 2018).
As the Cold War was escalating, India joined the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. To further the aim of industrialization, new institutes for the promotion of science and technology, such as Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Indian institutes of technologies (IIT) and Central Electronic Engineering Research Institute (CEERI) were established. The IITs were set up with foreign collaboration, first at Kharagpur (1951) and Bombay (1958) with the support of the Soviets, then Madras with the support of the West Germans, Kanpur (1959) established with American support and finally Delhi (1961) with British support. The adoption of Brutalist Architecture, expressing the structural bones of the structure which later became the popular image for modernity adopted by many leading Indian architects of the time such as Achyut Kanvinde, J. K. Chowdhury, Shiv Nath Prasad, and Raj Rewal (Lang et al., 2000; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015).
There was a restraint upon private trade and finance in this period that was levied through licencing (Roy, 2018). This period saw the growth of the Indian home-grown industrialists, the prominent houses being the Tatas, Birlas, Sriram, Dalmias, Godrej, Kirloskar and Morarjee who diversified into multiple businesses (Sen, 2019). Many multinational companies set up their Indian subsidiaries during this time, at the same time many British companies operating in India, withdrew from Indian markets and were taken over by local Indian businesses, particularly the Marwaris businessmen (Sen, 2019).
There was a decline in the traditional industries such as textile as the prevailing conditions did not allow modernization or raising of foreign capital, this eventually led to heavy financial losses, loss of production and eventually bankruptcy (D’Monte, 2005; Roy, 2018; Sen, 2019; Stewart, 1998). Financial Institutions, such as the Industrial Credit Investment Corporation, were set up in 1955, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India in 1956 and Industrial Development Bank of India in 1964. As institutions and private sector developed, Indian cities began to be dotted with multistoried buildings inspired by Industrial Modernism. The landmark buildings of the 1960s in the cities of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were similar to post-colonial Rio and post-war Italy. Experiments with industrial architecture were also underway; architects and engineers toyed with the idea of shells, vaults and large span trussed structures, the most famous being the factory of Escorts, Faridabad designed by Joseph Allen Stein in 1966 (Bhatt & Scriver, 1990; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015; White & Stein, 1993).
The period from 1969–1974 was tumultuous and saw many significant changes in the Indian economy due to the Indo Pak war of 1971 as well as the oil crisis of 1973. India adopted a more socialist approach to development aligning with the Soviet Union in 1971, with the development policy geared towards nationalization of infrastructure (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015; Sury et al., 2008). In 1965, the National Dairy Development Board was established, it spearheaded the White Revolution or Operation Flood, spreading the success of Amul co-operative of dairy farmers in Gujarat to the rest of the country, which transformed India from a milk deficient state into the largest producer of milk in the world. One of the most significant economic decisions of this time was the nationalization of banks in 1969; until then the banks were private sector enterprises owned by the business houses, for example, Tatas (Central Bank), Birlas (United Commercial Bank), Dalmia (Bharat Bank) and Thapar (Oriental Bank of Commerce) (Roy, 2018). Industrial architecture in the newly developing industrial sector was dominated by Brutalism as seen in the works of Kanvinde Rai Chowdhury for the design of the Delhi Cloth Mills at Hindon, Ghaziabad (1970), Achyut Kanvinde for the Dudhsagar Dairy Complex at Mehsana Gujarat (1971–1974), Atomic Power Plant Township at Kota. B.V. Doshi design for the township of Gujarat State Fertilizer Company, Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative at Kalol, LIC Colony at Ahmedabad and the Electronics Corporation of India at Hyderabad in 1971 (Bhatt & Scriver, 1990; Lang et al., 2000; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015). These architects defined the visual aesthetic of modern industrial architecture in India, much like Albert Kahn had achieved in the early part of the twentieth century in America as described in Chapter 3. These became the prototypes for institutional buildings and townships that were then built across the country.
Urban development was a top-down, centrally planned and controlled development programme enacted by the State through its Development Authorities, Public Works Departments and Housing Boards. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was formed in 1957, Bombay Metropolitan Regional Planning Board was constituted in 1967, City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) in 1970 Calcutta Metropolitan Authority (CMA) in 1972 and the Madras Metropolitan Authority 1974. Land use planning was the prerogative of the State and regulated through the Town and Country Planning Acts (Dwivedi et al., 1995; Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015).The State turned developer and monetized its land through the formation of Housing Development Boards. Post-independence, industrial areas were planned on the edges of the cities along transportation corridors, such as along the Eastern and Western suburbs of Bombay and New Bombay as well as the Hooghly Industrial Belt around Calcutta. The Noida, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad, Ballabhgarh and Faridabad Industrial areas began to grow around Delhi (Dwivedi et al., 1995; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015; Sen, 2019).
The Green Revolution began in Punjab and was a significant turnaround in the Indian economy. The imposition of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) in 1973 stressed the Indian economy even further. There were major strikes in the jute industry from 1969 to 1977, leading to further decline and lock downs. India performed the first nuclear test at Pokhran in 1974. The Electrical Supply Act was amended in 1975, allowing the Central Government entry into the sector. Nationalization of the coal mines was undertaken in the 1970s. Housing was one of the main concerns for development, the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) was formed in 1970 to provide affordable housing for all.
The global financial crisis due to the oil crisis also let to people finding low tech solutions and a more utilitarian version of Brutalism was emerging in the urban landscape in India. However, migration from the rural hinterland to work in the city and the inability of the State to provide housing for all led to the proliferation of squatter settlements and informal housing within metropolitan cities, this income inequality and duality became a grim reality of all Indian metropolitan cities (Evenson, 1989; Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015; Singh & Sethi, 2018).
The adoption of sixth five-year plan (1980–1985) marked an important milestone in the industrialization of India. The plan concentrated on improving global competitiveness and cost efficiency. The plan focused on development of industries, such as aluminium, zinc, leads petrochemicals, electrical equipment, consumer durables and automobiles (Sury et al., 2008). The private sector was suffering with bankruptcy and labour militancy through politicized strikes (D’Monte, 2005; Roy, 2018; Sen, 2019). The passing of the Air Pollution Control Act 1981 and the Water Pollution Act 1974, created the Central and State Pollution Control Boards, which regulated the industrial activity in the city (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015). The gas leak at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, in December 1984, is remembered as the worst environmental and industrial disasters of the twentieth century and led to the formulation of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (Roy, 2018).
The mill workers strike in 1982 in Bombay, involving almost 200,000 workers, went on for 18 months and further crippled a struggling textile industry (D’Monte, 2005; Mieg & Oevermann, 2014). There was an emphasis on reform, which led to the change in the Textile Policy in 1985, price control was removed and FERA was relaxed. The sick mills were nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertaking (Nationalization) Act 1974 and almost 103 sick mills were placed under the National Textile Corporation in the 1980s. The public sector undertakings were making colossal losses, revival packages failed miserably and plans to turn the mills into workers cooperatives also failed (D’Monte, 2005; Mieg & Oevermann, 2014; Roy, 2018).
The seventh five-year plan (1985–1990) moved away from socialism and allowed for greater participation in the electronics, hi-tech industries and service sectors. Tax concessions also came for corporations and the urban upper middle class (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015; Sury et al., 2008). The private sector saw many joint ventures between Indian and foreign companies such as Maruti Udyog with Suzuki, Hero Cycles with Honda, DCM-Toyota, Kawasaki Bajaj, Escorts Yamaha, Eicher with Mitsubishi and Modi with Xerox Apollo Tyres and MRF became new entrants to the tyre industry, which was hit by FERA, leading to disinvestments by Dunlop, Goodyear and CEAT (Roy, 2018; Sury et al., 2008).
Post-Liberalization (1991–Present)
India’s economic liberation policy, declared as its New Industrial Policy in 1991, the eighth five-year plan (1992–1997) focused on removing entry barriers to areas that had been reserved exclusively for public sector, rationalizing the approach towards monopolistic and restrictive practices, liberalizing foreign investment policy, far reaching liberalization of import policy with respect to intermediate and capital goods, measures to bring about regional balance, especially in the development of backwards areas, and on encouraging the growth of employment intensive small and tiny sector (Roy, 2018; Sury et al., 2008). Post 1992, international companies working in joint ventures with Indian companies started independent operations and major restructuring occurred in the Indian market (Roy, 2018). The declining jute industry of Calcutta that had been controlled by the local Marwari business houses like the Bajorias (Paul, 2012) was joined by new era industrialists (Roy, 2018). The growth in the pharma sector saw the emergence of Indian companies like Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, Cadil and Dr Reddy’s laboratories (Roy, 2018).
The ninth (1997–2002) and tenth (2002–2007) five-year plans focused on infrastructure development in urban and rural India (Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020; Sury et al., 2008). The Asian Financial Crisis had an impact on the Indian economy; post 2000, the Indian economy moved towards a service driven industry with sectors such as software, communication, travel and tourism, education, health care and construction gaining prominence. TCS, Infosys and Wipro saw major growth and became the architectural icons of Indian industry in the era of globalization (Roy, 2018; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015). Telecommunication, which was until 1995 reserved for the State, was opened to private operators: Essar, Bharti Airtel and Aircel Reliance (Subramanian, 2017). The civil aviation sector, which was nationalized in 1953, was also opened up to the private sector (Mukherji & Kankanhalli, 2009). The Indian software and IT services industry grew exponentially, serving the global market through business process outsourcing (BPOs), popularly known as call centres, in the worlds of global telemarketing, communication and technical support services. The globalization phase of the Indian cities saw the development of IT parks, new airports, hotels and luxury housing.
The neoliberal policies relegated the State to the role of the regulator while the open market determined the nature of development serviced by Indian and international architects (Scriver & Srivastava, 2015). The Standard Motors Products India Limited that was set up in Madras in 1949, closed and filed for bankruptcy in 1989, the Madras High Court liquidated the assets in 2005. The factory was demolished and an IT Park called Shriram Gateway was erected on the site in 2012 (CRCI, 2013).
In 1992, the 74th Amendment allowed decentralization of power to the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) (Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020). The lack of financial capital led to the State adopting the role of the regulator rather than the developer, opening the market for the private sector. Most manufacturing industries were running heavy financial losses, were defunct or locked down. With stringent environment control laws imposed on them, many industries relocated out of the main cities. In 1996 the Supreme Court ordered the relocation/shifting of polluting industries and the surrendering of some of the land for community purposes. Large infrastructure and real estate projects provided business for large firms and the corporate houses of declining industries shifted their business to real estate (Mathai, 2013; Supreme Court, 1996). In the private sector, most of the large industrial houses were divided up and partitioned amongst family members, dividing up their assets. For example, with the divisions in the Shriram family, the primary Delhi Cloth Mills (DCM) was relocated outside the city into the greenfield industrial zone at Hissar (Mathai, 2013). The site of the DCM Mills was redeveloped for real estate for commercial purposes. Similar situations were created with the family holdings of the Ruias, Piramals, ITC, etc., where their city centre mills were redeveloped for other commercial purposes (D’Monte, 2005, 2006; John & Unnikrishnan, 2005; Raval, 2000; Roy, 2018).
Architecturally, the metropolitan landscapes express the dichotomy of society, where glass and steel buildings epitomize the image of modernity, while informal settlements continue to rapidly explode around urban centres due to massive migration from the rural hinterland (D’Monte, 2006; Raval, 2000; Scriver & Srivastava, 2015).
Debt financing from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund encouraged a new model of public private partnerships in infrastructure developments. An ambitious urban renewal programme JNNURM I and JNNURM II was launched by the Government of India in 1997–2012 to improve the quality of life and infrastructure in Indian cities (Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020). It focused on providing basic services to the urban poor, slum rehabilitation, health, sanitation, soil waste management, water supply, road network, urban transport and the redevelopment of old city areas. Highways, flyovers, expressways or townships were built across the country with loans for infrastructure available through foreign funds. New greenfield infrastructure projects for industrial parks, such as the Integrated Township at Rajarhat, Electronics City Bangalore and Hi-Tech City Hyderabad were developed. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) and National Investment Manufacturing Zones (NIMZ) were developed at Manesar, Hyderabad. Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor and the Eastern Freight Traffic Corridor are being developed with the emphasis on the development of greenfield investment areas and industrial areas (Kulshrestha, 2018; Mehrotra & Guichard, 2020; Singh & Sethi, 2018).
Achieving environmental sustainability became a key agenda point for Indian cities and greenfield projects for harnessing wind and solar energy and several hydroelectric power plants were set up across the country. In 2015, the Government of India became a signatory to the International treaty on Climate Change (Paris Agreement). India has committed to restore 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030 and to reduce its dependency on fossil fuels (Indian Express, 2017). In 2015, the Government of India launched its ambitious flagship schemes Smart City Mission (SCM) (Government of India, n.d.), Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojna (HRIDAY) and the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) to achieve sustainable development (Tipnis, 2017). Some industrial heritage sites were considered for rejuvenation under these schemes, for example, the Silk Factory at Solina, Srinagar and the Chali Khu water irrigation site at Amritsar.
The Government of India launched the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan (Government of India, 2020) for creating a self-reliant India, which builds on the Make in India Mission, giving incentives to MSME (Medium and Small enterprises) and start-ups with an emphasis on privatization of State assets. The Union Budget for 2021 has identified the following sectors for privatization and disinvestment: atomic energy, defence, transport (including railways), telecommunication, power, petroleum, coal, banking, insurance and financial services (Nair, 2021).
Observations of the Mapping
The mapping of sites of industrial heritage value in the Indian context revealed several key issues related to industrial heritage in India (Figure 3).
Location and Setting: The mapping revealed that there is a significant concentration of industrial heritage sites around the port cities of Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata) and Madras (Chennai) as well as around Delhi. Given their strategic locations, these sites are under a tremendous pressure of real estate development making them most vulnerable to loss. Post-independence there have been expansions of industrial areas into other parts of the country as well. The sites of extraction are located within the hinterland (namely Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa) as well as along the Western Ghats; the sites of power production are concentrated along the Western Ghats and in the Himalayan Region of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal as well as Jammu and Kashmir located out of the tourist circuits.
Ownership, Jurisdiction and Governance: The mapping revealed that, at present, there is no single institution or agency responsible for policy making for safeguarding industrial heritage sites in India. Cultural heritage is the domain of the Ministry of Culture; however, the mapping has revealed that given the diversity of the typologies of the industrial heritage sites they are owned, managed and governed by different arms of the State. There is a lack of a comprehensive policy as well as a process for decision making concerning the management of industrial heritage India due to the overlapping jurisdictions as well as mandates of the State.
The mapping revealed that the State (and its various arms) has a very significant role in the management of industrial heritage sites in India. Most of the sites of extraction, namely coal, iron and steel, refinery and petrochemicals, as well as mining for diamond, gold, uranium, copper, bauxite, manganese and zinc are owned by the State (Central Government, State Government, Public Sector Undertaking). Sites of production have a combination of Public and Private Sector ownerships depending on the type of product. Major public sector holdings include ordinance factories, heavy industries as well as railways, aircrafts. Private sector includes cotton, wool, silk, jute production. It is important to note that several sick industries have been taken over by the State in the case of cotton mills in Mumbai and jute mills in the Howrah region. Other private sector industries include automobiles, rubber, cement, pharmaceuticals, electronics, sugar, tea, FMCG, chemicals, fertilizers and paper. Most of the transportation sites belong to the State Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Civil Aviation as well as State Governments. Sites belonging to Communication sector are also owned by the State, namely Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (Radio, Post and Telegraph, Television) as well as Ministry of Communications. The State also has a significant role in the power sector (coal, hydro, solar and nuclear) owning most of the sites of industrial heritage. The final category of ports and warehouses is also largely in the control of the State through the Ministry of Defence as well as the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterworks.
The current political and economic climate of privatization of State assets has a significant impact on these industrial heritage sites as they are most vulnerable to redevelopment and loss due to a lack of policy.
Levels of Protection as Heritage: The mapping revealed that there is no specific legislation or act for the protection of industrial heritage sites in India at the national level. The mapping revealed that the lack of a comprehensive policy for management of industrial heritage leads to differential treatment of sites. The protection of sites is facilitated by the urban heritage protection within the municipal jurisdictions at a local level. The mapping revealed that protection for industrial heritage was intrinsically linked to the prevailing local political economy of the specific city in which the site was located. The Mountain Railways of India is an unprotected heritage site, while the Victoria Terminus is listed as a Grade 1 heritage building within the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation rules. Some other city level landmarks, such as General Post Office, Telecommunication buildings and artefacts, may also be protected by the city on a case-to-case basis.
The impact of this building or monument centric approach is the landscapes of industry such as sites of extraction, production or transport cannot be protected in entirety as at present, there is no policy or mechanism for the preservation of industrial landscapes in India.
Diversity of Architectural Expressions: As described in “Mapping Architectural Industrial Heritage in India” section, the industrial development in India has been significant in the colonial, post-independence as well as post-liberalization period leading to a diversity of architectural expressions ranging from Victorian architecture to twentieth century Modernism and Brutalist structures as well as Post-Modern architecture. There is a lack of appreciation of twentieth century architecture in India and while efforts are being made to recognize that as a category in itself, these structures are most vulnerable to redeveloped leading to a rupture in the narrative of Indian industrial heritage without even recognizing it as that.
Lack of Mechanisms to Map the Intangible Industrial Heritage
The definition of Indian industrial heritage, as provided in “Methodology” section, recognizes the need to include the intangible aspects of know-how, oral history, memory, way of life into the definition of industrial heritage. However, in the Indian context, the mechanisms to preserve intangible industrial heritage are very weak, with almost no legislative protection to preserve industrial culture, sporadic projects to document the nostalgia and oral history are undertaken on a case-to-case basis such as for the Mumbai Mills and Kolar Gold Mines.
Discussion and Conclusions
The narrative of Indian industrialization is unique in many ways; a country that is industrializing and de-industrializing simultaneously; that is struggling in the discovery of its own identity within the myriad political, ethnic, social and economic discourses. The massive push given to industry in this contemporary era has a definitive impact on the urban landscape. The full circle from capitalism via socialism and back has rendered the urban fabric of the city a battle ground for the manifestation of the conflicting ideologies of its socialist and capitalist planning, coloured with a new lens of regionalism.
The question that is important to ask here is whether there is a place for industrial heritage within this discourse? Given the current social and political pressures in India, direct application of the Western approach to industrial heritage, preservation of entire landscapes of industrialization for touristic purposes is not practical. Current scholarship in the field advocates looking beyond an artefact centric approach to considering industrial heritage as a lens to view the city. The recommendations of the Charles Correa Committee in 1996 for the study of textile mills under the ownership of the State emphasized the need for considering industrial sites within the city as urban assets, which can be developed as public space for the citizens. The suggestions included enhancing the transport systems of the road and rail network, creating pedestrian plazas in front of stations as well as covered shopping arcades. It emphasizes the recycling and reusing of the existing mill buildings as artist studios and places for fashion designers, etc. It recommended the creation of a network of open spaces catering to a verity of different open-air activities and social amenities. It suggested the 1/3rd formula for the redevelopment of the mill lands, where 1/3rd land was to be donated to the municipality for developing civic spaces for the city, 1/3rd reserved for affordable housing built through housing cooperatives or state housing agencies and 1/3rd redeveloped as per prevailing market conditions. This report led to the State government revising the Development Control Regulations and allowing mill owners to partially sell their land for new development, resulting in large-scale demolition and high-end redevelopment of central Mumbai areas of Parel and Lalbaug. Two decades later, it is more than evident that the rules have been misused in favour of the mill owners, marginalizing the mill workers rights and city did not gain either public amenities nor affordable housing. The industrial heritage of the area could not be saved or reused in a holistic manner either.
It becomes almost urgent to identify, document and preserve the tangible and intangible heritage of Indian industrialization through both bottom-up as well as top-down policy level initiatives. The current mandate of the Ministry of Culture needs to be extended to include these ‘ordinary’ sites of industrial progress, and there needs to be more emphasis on the people stories in their interpretation.
The solution does not lie in just preserving these sites as mere industrial relics or monuments but in a more planning based approach that integrates the intangible heritage around these sites into newer developments, encourages reuse of these building while allowing some of the buildings to make way for new development. Participatory planning approaches that encourage multiple voices including those of the marginalized workers need to work at the local level need to be developed on a case-to-case basis. Collaborative partnerships between public bodies, grass root level NGOs and social enterprises as well as private sector are required to creatively envision a brighter future of industrial heritage.
The most critical first step is raising awareness about what industrial heritage means to us in the Indian context amongst citizens, policy makers, heritage conservationists, planners and students. Converging the efforts of various individuals, institutions as well as NGOs (Indian and International), we need to extend our understanding of heritage to include industrial heritage and bring in perspectives of climate adaptation, economic revitalization and social cohesion into the debate on industrial heritage. The key stakeholders would be the various ministries of the Government of India, Public Sector Undertaking as well as the Development Authorities other than local communities. There is a need to anchor this research through a national level agency such as the NITI Aayog or NIUA, in developing an open-source database converging data sets as well as strategic policy for managing industrial heritage not only owned by the State but also by the private sector.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the efforts of Krittika Mohan, Jaya Khurana, Abantika Mukherjee and Mrinalini Singh in the assistance provided during the online mapping process.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.