April 18, 2004

The transportation of Nusserwanjee Building to a different site has undoubtedly been a pioneering effort, but most of the decisions during the entire exercise were taken rather instinctively and emotionally

NUSSERWANJEE Building, that stood in Kharadar as one of the several insignificant buildings of the colonial era, and was destined to be demolished and turned into useless rubble, suddenly stole the limelight and became the most focussed, most photographed, most publicized historic building of Karachi. The reason for this sudden change of fate was the decision of a group of professionals, in 1991, who decided to play the role of saviours for this architectural edifice and make it part of the then newly established campus of the Indus Valley School of Art and Architecture (IVSAA).

From 1991 to 2003, when the building reached its (almost) completion, publicity and fame came aplenty. The architectural edifice that suddenly became famous repaid its gratitude to its saviours by bringing enormous publicity to the school, and the school was praised for the magnificent work it had done.

The project was undoubtedly a pioneering effort, and required a lot of hard work and laboriously generated funds to manage the whole concept. It does emerge as something unique, extraordinary and impressive. The only debate in this whole issue is over what the whole exercise has contributed in professional terms to the area of conservation practices.

Although the initiators of the project don’t have any outright claims for labelling the project as one for conservation, but no matter what is said, it does fit into the domain of this field and needs to be looked into from that angle. The immense popularity that the project has gathered makes it necessary to review it from a professional point of view, in the light of international practices and accepted principles.

There are various issues pertaining to this project of building transfer. The first and foremost is obviously questioning, why to move it? It is very clear from universally accepted principles and legislative framework on architectural conservation that have been developed over decades by an international network of organizations and professionals, that any monument is part and parcel of its surroundings, and cannot be seen or treated in isolation. Several charters, doctrines, acts, etc. clearly define this and strongly discourage the moving of heritage property from its context and surrounding.

“A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs. The moving of all or part of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international interests of paramount importance,” says Article 7 of the Venice Charter, 1964.

“The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival,” reads Article 9.1 of the Burra Charter, 1999.

Although Pakistan does not actively participate in the international network of conservation organizations, but it officially supports this network in its capacity as a member, and is thus ethically obliged to adhere to the internationally accepted laws and principles for conservation.

Transportation of monuments is not favourably recommended, but there have been various examples in the world where situations have occurred leaving transportation as the only possibility for safeguarding the monument, and protecting it from danger.

The biggest and the most known example is the shifting of the Abu Simbel (1964-1968) and Philae (1972-1979) temples in the Nile Valley, when the construction of Aswan Dam, in 1902, and later the High Aswan Dam, in 1970, caused flooding of several temples in the area.

In the national interest it was necessary to construct the dam because Egypt’s economy depended immensely on its agricultural produce. But on the other hand the Nubian Temples were internationally recognized monuments of a very high historic and architectural value. Thus, an international campaign was launched and experts from all over the world were called in to contribute to the decisions that were later implemented for the safeguarding of these monuments.

The important and most commendable factors in the whole affair were the sensitive decisions for the choice of relocation, as well as the methodology adopted for the whole process to be carried out with painstaking details and regard to authenticity till the very end. The whole process being cost-intensive, only two most extraordinary temples were selected for relocation. Several other inundated temples of lesser importance were preserved on site by burying them under concrete barriers.

The selected temples were dismantled piece by piece, and shifted to another safer location within the valley, keeping into consideration that their original context did not change drastically. The whole campaign lasted twenty-one years, beginning from 1959 and officially ending in 1980.

In most well-reputed transportation cases there has been a very strong justification in the wider context of public interest, nationally and/or internationally. In comparison, if we analyze the Nusserwanjee case, the threat faced by it was ‘demolition’, that no doubt was terminative, but that is the fate faced by many more edifices, much richer in architectural vocabulary, existing within the city centre today.

The nature of this threat can in no way be classified as natural or unavoidable or in the broader interest of the nation. In fact, the threat is looming on our historic districts only because of corruption and incompetence on the part of administrative agencies and an undying boundless greed on the part of the investors/ builders/owners.

The decision for transporting a monument that holds its importance in the context of the historic quarter it existed in, just supports the economic interests of builders or investors of that specific property, and sets precedence for justifying an act of lawlessness and disregard to the legislation that gives protection to historic buildings.

The thing to question is, at the cost of distorting and defacing a city’s historic core, can such a decision ever be completely justified? Since the project was supported by a very strong and resourceful lobby of professionals, transporting of Nusserwanjee building has actually come out as a statement of forfeiting rights to exclaim against such destructive acts. It is a statement of the professionals’ impotence in the existing market forces.

The second issue of prime importance is the procedures for execution and the outcome of the project. For a while, let’s justify the decision for transporting the monument on the grounds that there was no other choice, and if not done the monument would have been lost forever. This actually was the case! With the prevailing trends and scope of conservation practices within the city, as well as the country, one can still find reason to understand and sympathize with the fact that there was no other way to save the building. At this point the procedures with which the whole project is carried out make all the difference.

In a project of this nature it is very important that the entire edifice is dismantled piece by piece, marked and identified accurately on documentation drawings and, more importantly, replaced in exactly the same relative position it occupied before being dismantled.

In the case of Nusserwanjee, apparently the first stage went well (hats off to the contractor) but then on the way to the second stage of putting the jigsaw puzzle back in place, something went drastically out of hand.

In the light of internationally accepted principles and guidelines of conservation, any monument is judged for its worth in terms of authenticity on the basis of four things (Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, ICCROM 1993): authenticity of material, authenticity of workmanship, authenticity of design, and authenticity in setting.

The Document of Nara on Authenticity, 1994, endorsed by international organizations like UNESCO, ICCROM and ICOMOS, etc. also identifies aspects of authenticity as “form and design, material and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, spirit and feeling, and internal and external aspects of information sources”.

The essence of conservation and historic preservation is to “transfer authentic information on to the future generations” as an evidence of history. In order to judge the potential contribution of Nusserwanjee project in this regard, we just need to honestly ask ourselves, is this what has been done? If one starts to weigh how much of the original has been authentically transferred to the new, the percentages that pop up might not be very inspiring.

Originally, the building had an extrovert setting with its peripheral walls outlining the street. Its location at the junction of two busy streets, gave it a dominant triangular corner. The two wings of the building flanked the small courtyard, and a small service area with lifts, staircase and toilets, joined the two blocks at the far end, forming a U-shape plan.

One entered into the small courtyard directly from the street, through an arched doorway. The courtyard-facing walls, as well as the back-side walls, considered to be of secondary importance, were constructed with rubble stone masonry, whereas all street-facing facades were constructed of dressed stone masonry. The ground floor had a majestic appearance because of the immense height of about eighteen feet.

In the present situation, the building is placed inside the showcase of a huge plot, with the originally prominent triangular junction placed towards the side of the plot. The width of the courtyard has been approximately doubled in dimension to give a more open access to the new structure behind it. The service wing forming the U-shape plan has been eliminated on the grounds that the services it housed were very dilapidated. The courtyard-facing walls, originally of rubble stone masonry, have been reconstructed with block masonry covered with stone cladding of new stone blocks, emphasizing them more than their earlier counterparts. The height of the ground floor has been split by adding an additional floor and the basement.

From the versions emerging through interviews of various people involved with the project and available archival resources, it is quite apparent that the layout is not exactly the same, the construction technique and structural system is new, the materials are partially the original, i.e. dressed stone masonry on the front and outer facades, but not exactly the same in other areas, and, above all, the setting of the building and its relationship to the street and the surroundings is completely alien.

The debate that generates here is, what are we passing on for the future generations to perceive as part of their city’s historic development and historic fabric?

To conclude, it will not be wrong to say that what started off as a gesture in good faith gradually turned into a ‘publicity stunt’ and slowly became a ‘success’ story than a conservation project. What is scary about this whole issue is that it can be foreseen as a nightmare for conservators and all those who understand what professional conservation and architectural restoration is all about.

The way this particular venture has been publicized and applauded, it has actually become a potential trend-setter. In fact, the trend has already been set, and a couple of projects in the city do show an influence of this encouraged ‘transportation’ of monuments.

The Nusserwanjee project, to its credit, undoubtedly generated a debate in architectural circles and substantially increased the level of awareness for heritage among the people. Though superficially, people have at least started to show signs of interest towards issues related to the historic centre of the city.

The wisdom is in learning from experiences, and the rising awareness can only contribute positively if geared towards actions that may lead to a long-term policy for protection of the architectural heritage of the city. The major message coming out of this entire exercise is that due to lack of formal training and understanding about conservation issues, most of the decisions were taken instinctively and emotionally.

It is time to acknowledge that conservation is a scientific field of specialization, and there is a need for proper training programmes and institutional efforts in this regard. Our institutions and professional bodies seriously need to take it up as a responsibility towards society, towards the city and towards future generations. The repercussions of the Nusserwanjee project are already visible. One could just hope and pray that the trend doesn’t catch up, otherwise Karachi’s history and its historic evidences will become a jumble of confusions, altered and tempered forever. n

The writer is an Assistant Professor with the Department of Architecture and Planning at the NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi. She has a Master’s Degree in Architectural Conservation from the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, and has done an international course on Stone Conservation conducted by ICCROM at Venice in 2003.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)