Indian Architectural Theory and Practice

Contemporary Uses of Vastu Vidya

Vibhuti Chakrabarti

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136778827
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

In this ground-breaking study the traditional Indian science of architecture and house-building, Vastu Vidya, is explored in terms of its secular uses, at the levels of both theory and contemporary practice. Vastu Vidya is treated as constituting a coherent and complete architectural programme, still of great relevance today. Chakrabarti draws on an impressive amount of textual material, much of it only available in Sanskrit, and presents several extremely valuable illustrations in support of the theories expounded. Each chapter deals with one architectural aspect, and chapters are divided into three sections. For each aspect, the first section explains the prescriptions of the traditional texts; the second section deals with the rather arbitrary use of that aspect by contemporary Indian architects trained in the western manner but striving to relate to Indian roots; while the last section in each chapter explores the selected use of that particular aspect by contemporary Vastu pundits, with their disregard for architectural idiom.

Chapter One

Architectural Team

The architectural team here refers to a collaboration of specialists that contribute their skills to realise the translation of a design concept. It becomes imperative that each expert understands and follows the principles of the programme the concept is envisaged in. A simple instance of this is that, say, the services of a structural engineer, an electrician, plumber, and so on, besides that of an architect, required for a house designed in a modern urban context, are all unified by the underlying dictates of the prevalent architectural programme. The electrician would be required to know, for example, about the installation of an air conditioner, which in a different context of a rural setting is quite irrelevant. Similarly, a stone mason who contributes to the construction of say, a traditional Haveli, may be of little relevance to the realisation of a design envisaged in modern materials like concrete, steel and glass. The specialist services required for the realisation of the design are largely created on the foundation of the architectural programme followed, and a specialist of one programme may be defunct for the other. This is in reference to two programmes – the traditional supported by Vastu Vidya, and the ‘modern’ Indian one supported by the prevalent architectural education and practice.¹ Therefore, a traditional builder may not be proficient in the design of a modern house, and the ‘modern’ architect may not be adept in the traditional design idiom. While the basic role of the architectural team, which is to design and construct, may not change with the programme employed, the associated expertise required would vary. This could also be gleaned from the representative texts on Vastu Vidya which describe the qualifications of the various experts, most of which today are considered redundant.

The Traditional Team

Manasara (II. 1–39) and Mayamata (V. 14–25) describe the four specialists that comprise the architectural team, as the Sthapati, Sutragrahin, Takshaka and Vardhaki. The Sthapati or architect conceptualises the overall design scheme and directs the rest of the team. He must possess a scholastic aptitude and a firm grasp over all the Shastra, as his qualification is that of an Acharya² or teacher, and must “know the ancient authors … and the whole country; he must have crossed the ocean of the science of architecture”.³ He is the “Guru” of the other three experts,⁴ whose instructions are backed by the knowledge and a theoretical base in the Veda, Vastu Shastra and subjects like astrology and mathematics. He is followed with respect by the rest of the team as “to them, it is Vishvakarman in person who is revealed through his aspect”.⁵ His supremacy in the hierarchy of the team is explicit, “without them he can do nothing”,⁶ but equally, “without the technicians led by the architect nothing beneficial can be embarked upon here below, but with them as with a guru, mortal beings attain deliverance”.⁷ This also indicates an underlying division in the architectural team, with the Sthapati on one side and the other three, led by the Sutragrahin on the other.

The vital link between the concept and the physical form, is the Sutragrahin or one who holds the cord. An expert in drawing and learned in Shastra, the Sutragrahin initiates the implementation of the design concept. Being a disciple or a son of the Sthapati, he understands the instructions and follows them without conflict. He draws the scheme and “knows how to make the rod and the rope fly and how to measure length, height and proportions”.⁸ He is the guru or director of the other two specialists. The role of the Vardhaki is as the name suggests, to add to the work of the Sutragrahin. He is an expert in painting and masonry. He assembles the pieces that are cut and carved by the Takshaka. The Vardhaki is the guru of the Takshaka. The other attributes, almost common to all, besides the knowledge of the Veda and Shastra, are the virtues of the idealised professional – honesty, compassion, skill, purity, strength, freedom from envy and greed, generosity, health, attentiveness and freedom from all vices.

In Samarangana Sutradhara (VIII. 1–22), however, the persona of the Sthapati incorporates the roles and skills of the entire team. This eleventh century text does not attribute the requisite skills to four different personae. It has been suggested by R.N.Misra that the texts elucidate an earlier tradition, which at the time of writing may already have been extinct.⁹ After the Gupta period, the textual evidence of the guild system is scarce, as buildings of a monumental scale inevitably required a large number of artisans.¹⁰ With the team no longer limited to four experts, attributing the accountability to one person was necessary. Also the inscriptions on the monuments do not bear the name of the Sthapati, but of the Sutradhara,¹¹ indicating a dilution of the strictness in the roles of the experts. Therefore, the textual description of the role of the Sthapati is not of one person, but of the attributes that are required to facilitate design and execution, which may either be distributed among four experts or concentrated in one person. This is further indicated by the qualifications of the expert that remains consistent in essence, varying predominantly in the presentation of the subject by the author of the text.

The Sthapati, according to Samarangana Sutradhara, must know the Shastra, the theoretical basis, including mathematics, astrology, Chhandas or metres, crafts and the working of mechanical devices. The importance of the knowledge of both theory and practice is underlined, as the knowledge of only the Shastra without knowing its application, makes the Sthapati like a coward in a battlefield. And if the Sthapati practices without the knowledge of the Shastra, he is misled easily like a blind person.¹² He must practice without greed, anger, jealousy and bias. He is also required to be proficient in eight skills of drawing, painting, carving, wood-work, stonework, metal-work, masonry, and sculpting.¹³

As is indicated above in the Manasara and Mayamata, the Sthapati and the rest of the team were the personified precepts of theory and practice, where the Sutragrahin formed the link between the two. The designation of Sutradhara bears a close relationship with Sutragrahin. The Sutradhara adopts a key role in Sanskrit plays, where he delivers the prologue which is outside the story, greets the audience, provides the information about the author, the play, its context and the significance of its performance.¹⁴ The role of the Sutragrahin in the building process is similar to that of the Sutradhara in the performance of a drama. Sutragrahin ties the author and the actors in the play of architecture, where the author is the Sthapati and the actors are the skilful artisans. The composition of his role necessitates a thorough knowledge of the vocabulary of the Sthapati, and of the artisans as well. This is also indicated by Rajavallabha (15th century AD), written by Sutradhara Mandana, where Vishvakarma is described as the divine Sutradhara and not the architect.¹⁵ The attributes of the Sutradhara are talent, dexterity in all kinds of work, knowledge, lack of greed, and calm, and he is twice-born or a Brahmin.¹⁶ The superlative position of the Sthapati is finally surpassed by the all-dexterous Sutradhara, facilitated also by the apparent remoteness of the Sthapati from the actual construction process. Parallels of this could be found in the contemporary situation, where numerous buildings are designed and constructed by non-architects, like draughtsmen, engineers, contractors, or builders, who are otherwise envisaged as a part of an architectural team.

Contemporary Users

Today the practice of Vastu Vidya, albeit continuous, is fragmented beyond recognition. Indicative of this fragmentation is its use not as a whole architectural programme, but in bits and pieces that have little role to play in the definition of the contemporary architectural idiom.¹⁷ Its negation as an obsolete architectural programme in the recent past, has led to its usage in a secondary sense, where it is not allowed to interfere with the individualistic perception of the design problem and its solution – now resolved by modern methodology. It is not a part of the curriculum or discussion in any of the main architectural schools in India, and exposure to its built representation is via modern parameters of architectural appreciation. Besides the modern architect, the team of experts, whose collaboration is quintessential to the realisation of the Vastu Vidya programme of architecture, have resorted to insulated individual practices. They too are fast disappearing primarily due to their perceived irrelevance to the needs of modern India. Some of the fragments of Vastu Vidya have adopted new meanings, where their fundamental purpose is obliterated by a kind of ritualism fashioned to hastily satisfy an inner conflict without the complementary architectural manifestation. Its complete redundancy as an architectural programme, which in its long history had thrived with the variables of climate, topography, life styles, as well as the social, political and economic situation of its land, render all the allied building crafts superfluous.

The practitioners¹⁸ who today use or make references to Vastu Vidya could be identified as the following: the ‘Indian’ architect, who in search of his identity makes emphatic references to the traditional building vocabulary; the Vastu Pundit, who provides guidelines largely regarding the orientation principles that dictate the layout of the building; the astrologer, for whom Vastu Vidya belongs to the same tradition as astrology, and the points of intersection between the two allow its practice in oblivion to the architecture it yields; the traditional craftsman, who today is bereft of the tutelage of the traditional team, and finds application of his skill primarily in the conservation of old buildings; conservation architects, who document and analyse monuments for the sake of repairing and preserving them, and art historians who analyse them to develop a theoretical discourse on their history. The above are not strict categories, but some of the more apparently defined types of users, identified to discuss their individual usage of the finely fragmented corpus of Vastu Vidya.

Broadly speaking, while the astrologers, craftsmen, conservation architects and scholars use scooped-out parts of Vastu Vidya in more or less its original intent, the ‘Indian’ architect and the contemporary Vastu Pundit, reinterpret and reinvent the principles, to fit them comfortably within a different architectural programme.

The quest for identity of the modern architect in India stems from the peculiarity of the very birth of this profession. In 1896, in the Sir J.J.School of Architecture, a two-year course was instituted to train draughtsmen and tracers who would aid the execution of buildings in British India.¹⁹ Its expansion to a five-year course carving the basic shape of architectural education saw fruition in 1922. Here in particular, a collateral study of comparison between the classical styles of Europe and India was ushered, in a hope that “the more clearly the principles of Composition Proportion and General Design underlying Grecian monuments are understood the more clearly will Indian Students be able to grasp the principles which underlie the classical works of their own country”.²⁰ This exercise was one of comparing the physical veneer of Indian architectural form to that of the well documented classical orders of Europe, without the former being backed by an appreciation of the context of the architectural programme and philosophy instrumental in its generation. This also suggested that all classical architectural styles could be analysed by the universalised parameters of architectural appreciation. It also assumed that the nature of the Indian classical style could be adequately judged by the European design sensibility, and its underlying principles could be superimposed to learn about the Indian design sensibility.

In general, this strained correspondence to the European yardstick of appreciation is reflected in P.K.Acharya’s significant work on the compilation and translation of Manasara, where he draws num...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Plates
• Foreword
• Preface
• Introduction: A Survey of Texts, Ancient and Modern
• Chapter One: Architectural Team
• Chapter Two: System of Measurement
• Chapter Three: Vastu Purusha Mandala
• Chapter Four: Orientation
• Chapter Five: Site Considerations
• Chapter Six: Building Materials
• Chapter Seven: Defining the Built Form
• Epilogue
• Bibliography
• Index