Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Asian Studies, 77 (4), pp 1013-1035 2018, © 2018 Cambridge University Press.
Accepted author manuscript, 659 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Inhabited Pasts
T2 - Monuments, Authority, and People in Delhi, 1912–1970s
AU - Sutton, Deborah Ruth
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Journal of Asian Studies, 77 (4), pp 1013-1035 2018, © 2018 Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2018/11/1
Y1 - 2018/11/1
N2 - This article considers the relationship between the official, legislated claims of heritage conservation in India and the wide range of episodic and transitory inhabitations which have animated and transformed the monumental remains of the city, or rather cities, of Delhi. Delhi presents a spectrum of monumental structures that appear variously to either exist in splendid isolation from the rush of every day urban life or to peek out amidst a palimpsest of unplanned, urban fabric. The repeated attempts of the state archaeological authorities to disambiguate heritage from the quotidian life of the city was frustrated by bureaucratic lapse, casual social occupations and deliberate challenges. The monuments offered structural and spatial canvases for lives within the city; providing shelter, solitude and the possibility of privacy, devotional and commercial opportunity. The dominant comportment of the city’s monuments during the twentieth century has been a hybrid monumentality, in which the jealous, legislated custody of the state has become anxious, ossified and ineffectual. An acknowledgement and acceptance of the hybridity of Delhi’s monuments offers an opportunity to re-orientate understandings of urban heritage.
AB - This article considers the relationship between the official, legislated claims of heritage conservation in India and the wide range of episodic and transitory inhabitations which have animated and transformed the monumental remains of the city, or rather cities, of Delhi. Delhi presents a spectrum of monumental structures that appear variously to either exist in splendid isolation from the rush of every day urban life or to peek out amidst a palimpsest of unplanned, urban fabric. The repeated attempts of the state archaeological authorities to disambiguate heritage from the quotidian life of the city was frustrated by bureaucratic lapse, casual social occupations and deliberate challenges. The monuments offered structural and spatial canvases for lives within the city; providing shelter, solitude and the possibility of privacy, devotional and commercial opportunity. The dominant comportment of the city’s monuments during the twentieth century has been a hybrid monumentality, in which the jealous, legislated custody of the state has become anxious, ossified and ineffectual. An acknowledgement and acceptance of the hybridity of Delhi’s monuments offers an opportunity to re-orientate understandings of urban heritage.
KW - Ancient Monuments Preservation Act
KW - Archaeological Survey of India
KW - bureaucracy
KW - Delhi
KW - heritage
KW - India
KW - monuments
KW - urban biography
KW - urbanism
U2 - 10.1017/S0021911818000906
DO - 10.1017/S0021911818000906
M3 - Journal article
VL - 77
SP - 1013
EP - 1035
JO - Journal of Asian Studies
JF - Journal of Asian Studies
SN - 0021-9118
IS - 4
ER -