Expression of Mass Dissent in Political Complexes of Settlements
The architectural design of politically significant sites like the capitol complex or the residence of the political head, which were built before reformations aligning towards democracies, carry an authoritarian bias which is contested during protests that involve outpouring of people into these places, making them a battleground for conflict between the state and protesters affecting regular functioning of the city. While dissent has been acknowledged by societies and designated places for its expression have been emerging, inadequacies of the overall layout are revealed as soon as the protester count exceeds and people start approaching politically significant sites. Expression of dissent remains to be a neglected aspect of these places, evident in the clogged traffic and the need to use force, leading to grave issues like inaccessibility to emergency healthcare for people who are not even direct participants of the event. Thus, there is a need of incorporating the accepted social motive of dissent expression in the overall layouts of political complexes.
Public spaces have been called a sphere of multiplicity and plurality, and a significant location for cultures to negotiate, protest, modify, and present their values and traditions1. They represent social effort and reflect social motives 2. Out of the many ways in which mass expression of dissent can happen, the ways that involve the use of public space confront existing political powers to establish new political agendas 3 and are directly dependent on the opportunities provided (or not) by the design of built environment of our settlements. It can be verified by simply tracing protest sites in any settlement that over time, such opportunities are identified and utilized by people and collectively recognized spaces for the expression of mass dissent emerge. In other words, certain locations that satisfy most criteria that a protesting group aims for while picking up a site to protest are repeatedly preferred by protesters over others 4 and their public image gradually attains the status of a protest site, even if it wasn't built with that intent. Out of any other location for a protest, the ones that take place in the political complexes hold special value. It takes a higher amount of risk and courage since these places are actively monitored. For a group to be willing to do a demonstration in these places would need a cause of such importance that deserves the venue. Such protests confront the highest authority of a state directly rather than lower-tier branches of the administration. Since every section of society holds representation in the political identity of the state, the physical site of the political complex extends its belongingness to every section of the society, making anything happening there to be relevant to everyone. Thus, even if a particular protest happening there is not related to everyone else in the society, yet, everyone becomes a keen spectator of the event since something is happening in the location of their political center too. These places reflect the socially accepted, yet the ever-evolving status of the political relationship of a state with its people and have been called modern equivalent to a holy place 1. When a protest occurs in a place of high political value, it marks an occasion of contestation, and possibly an evolutionary event for the established socio-political relationships. Thus, it becomes a necessary responsibility of the state to keep room for such evolutionary events, in absence of which, calls for social change would be made from desperately chosen locations, inappropriate for dissent expression, unintentionally disrupting existing functions, leading to higher chances of a conflict.
Delhi, for example, has witnessed several protest movements being the political center of India over the course of history and since independence, spaces in front of the Parliament, around Rajpath, Boat Club, Ramlila Maidan, Connaught Place, and Jantar Mantar have emerged as hotspots for expression of dissent in the national capital (Figure 1). Shaheen Bagh is the latest addition to this list of places. In November 2018, the government imposed a ban on the upper limit of the number of protesters in Jantar Mantar citing damage done to the monument by protesters 5. A similar ban was imposed on Boat Club in 1993, amid security concerns of political heads in close vicinity 6. Shaheen Bagh had been under the constant scrutiny of law and order for disrupting the day to day use of the precinct. A limit on the number of protesters, or a complete ban, or any other imposition by law on the form of a protest can be perceived as a pact between the state and protesters, to maintain civil conduct and not disrupt day to day life while a protest is going on 3. It is a compromised situation for any protesting group as well as the state revealing that our public spaces are ill-equipped in accommodating mass protests and that even though the expression of public dissent has been identified among the collective social motives, yet we live in a compromised situation on an everyday basis because we live in outdated built environments, particularly the sites of high political significance, which represent the political relationship between people and their government directly and are built entirely with the resources of a society.
 |
Figure 1: Popular protest sites - Lutyens Delhi: 1. Ramlila Maidan 2. Connaught Place 3. Jantar Mantar 4. India Gate 5. Rajpath Lawns (Base map source - Google maps) |
In authoritarian societies, grand palaces used to be the centers to impress the ruled and intimidate visitors, built to reflect and reinforce the power of the ruler 7. The Central Vista of New Delhi was visualized by Lutyen to highlight the supremacy of British rule 8 and the new city was even named – Imperial Delhi. The layout was designed and executed during British Raj when Indian political system was indeed imperial and even when constitutionally India reformed to be a democratic republic in 1947, this site remained as it was due to its heritage and symbolic value and the sheer cost that would be needed to replace it entirely. Although, contrary to this, in the very recently approved Central Vista redevelopment project, amid persistent objections over issues around a more democratic and transparent process, the proposed and approved design still aims to conserve and strengthen already existing political distance between political heads and public. The land use of the 'political courtyard of the country' has recently been changed from public and semi-public to government office 9.
 |
| Figure 2: Relationship between popular protest sites(red) and politically significant structures - Lutyens Delhi |
Read the next section of this series here, which presents the influence of sites of religious significance on sites of political significance carried over into today’s political complexes of states that have reformed to democratic societies like India, followed by identifying democratic places in the traditional built environment, revealing key differences between the two kinds of places.
Read the following section here in which three specific protest events have been briefly revisited, chosen based on their location in places of high political value and international recognition to identify those attributes of these places that facilitate the expression of dissent.
Read the final section of this series here in which drawing from the first two sections, an attempt has been made to visualize a theoretical model of a political complex in which the expression of mass dissent is the driving force of design.
References:
| |
Comments
Post a Comment