There has been much consternation over the redesigned Jallianwala Bagh memorial in Amritsar. The original memorial, designed by Benjamin Polk, was stark; the redesigned one has been called a ‘Disney-fied’ version of reality; that is, a happy place, complete with a sound-and-light show, desensitised to the terrible event that it memorialises.
Under the current political regime, there is much effort at re-narrating the past through the monumentalisation/ memorialisation of events and people. But there are three sets of questions that come to mind: One, what are we memorialising? Is there a narrative on the design of memorials? Two, who actually redesigned the memorial? How were they chosen? Was the selection process different from that in the past? And three, what is the design process for memorials? Were the public and stakeholders consulted in the redesign of Jallianwala Bagh?
When memorialising a tragic event such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, a public memorial is meant to keep past events alive in the common memory through physical representation. The memorial design is meant to imprint on social memory, remind the visitor/society of the violent history and pain caused so that they may seek ways to prevent such events from occurring in the future. Memorials are designed to carry the past to the present and to encourage survivors and future generations to explore contested memories of the past.
Also Read | A lack of sense and sensibility of history
Public memorials contribute to the city landscape and their design is therefore critical. “Disneyfication” -- cultural shorthand for a sanitised and “imagineered” spectacle of urban reality and an opiate for the middle-class masses -- of the Jallianwala Bagh memorial is problematic.
Vama Communications, a company in Ahmedabad, redesigned Jallianwala Bagh. The redesign of the memorial was sanctioned in 2019 under the National Implementation Committee to mark 100 years of the massacre of hundreds of Indians by British General Reginald Dyer and his troops in 1919. The advisory committee had officials from the ministries of culture and tourism, besides the Archeological Survey of India and NBCC Ltd., which floated a tender. Vama Communications -- designer of the National Police Museum, New Delhi; the Dinosaur Museum, Balanisor, Gujarat; Mahatma Gandhi Museum, Rajkot; and the Kanji Swami Museum, Umrala -- was selected based on the tender requirements.
The process of selection of the designer was no different from the process used by previous regimes and was technically above board. Due to the lack of ‘capacity within governments (local, state and national), project statements are usually developed by private parties or non-profits or advocacy firms close to the political party in power. Monies are allocated and tendering is facilitated. Typically, firms known to the agencies involved in the ‘development' of the project are shortlisted and selected. In the case of the Jallianwala Bagh memorial, Vama Communications, well-known to the ruling regime, which designs museums and memorials with a technology-driven path (3D projections, virtual reality, touch interactive surfaces) was selected. Unfortunately, this did not equate to a sensitive and quality designed project.
Thirdly, apparently, some form of public consultation was conducted. Some of the stakeholders were asked how they would like the memorial to look and some were shown some drawings of the designs. This was unfortunately a tokenistic process. A truly consultative process would have started well in advance of the design, elicited discussion from, and engaged with, stakeholders throughout the design process.
Also Read | Bhaag Jallianwala Bagh
Ultimately, the redesign of the Jallianwala Bagh memorial is a case of poor design. Even if the monument is meant to reflect the cultural values of the masses and not the values of the elite, the monument reflects poorly as an aesthetic and historical object. This is partly because the structural process associated with the selection of the designer is opaque, skewed and easily influenced. This needs reconfiguration for the selection of better designers for future monuments and public infrastructure.
Perhaps, if a competition method or participatory process (often used for public infrastructure design abroad) had been used, a more sensitive selection could have been made. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The current structure devalues the participatory process and creates an atmosphere for more projects that lack true public participation.
And finally, regarding the ‘Disneyfication’ of the memorial: Many historical monuments are in dire need of repair and there has been much discussion on ‘privatisation’ of historical and urban design. The process of determining what shape a memorial project should take and how memorial space should be used is essential -- more important, ultimately than the monument itself.
(The writer is a Bengaluru-based urban designer)
Watch the latest DH Videos here: