The facade of a building leaves a lasting impression on passersby, shaping their perception through its architectural design. In contemporary contexts, governmental architecture employs its facade as a symbolic ‘wrapper’ to visually communicate distinct historical, socio-political narratives, consciously absorbed by the public. The architecture of Vadodara’s newly inaugurated ‘New Collector Office’ building, costing 22 crores, is no less than a pretentious adaptation of an Indo-Saracenic style. Spread across 1,43,500 sq. ft. in the heart of the city, this building serves as a key administrative hub commissioned by the Roads & Buildings Department of the Gujarat Government. Historically, especially during the colonial era, governmental architecture conveyed symbolic power through utilitarian service structures, intertwining architectural expression and political ethos. In light of these reflections, and given its context in today’s purportedly democratic context, what narrative is conveyed through the architectural expression of this governmental building?

The advent of colonial rule in India marked the emergence of utilitarian service buildings like bungalows, courthouses, government offices, jails, and post offices. The colonizers, viewing themselves as administrators, constructed these structures to facilitate commercial interests and assert authority. Erected by the Public Works Department (P.W.D.), established in 1855, these buildings followed strict utilitarian standards. They featured long, linear, low-height modules with symmetrical facades and round-headed openings, devoid of any sense of architectural aesthetics. This period witnessed a significant proliferation of such buildings, transforming the architectural landscape of colonial India. The architectural approach by the colonizers through these elements suggests a deliberate focus on creating structures meant for efficient administrative purposes over cultural integration or aesthetic extravagance. 

After ruling for a sesquicentennial and establishing imperial dominance, the early twentieth century witnessed a progression in the architectural language of colonial structures in India. Positioning themselves as successors to the Mughals and claiming superior administrative prowess over native Marathas or Rajputs, the British sought to affirm their supremacy and control through various building typologies, including governmental structures. While they ostensibly served administrative facilities, their facades served a deeper purpose: visually conveying their superiority and authority native Indians through architectural expression. This period prominently featured the Indo-Saracenic style, a blend of Indian and Islamic elements, characterized by chattris, onion or pinnacle domes, jalis, or motifs. While they defined the visual appearance, the planning principles and spatial organization adhered strongly to British standards. Simultaneously, commendable functional strategies adopted by the P.W.D. included careful selection of building materials, local labor, adoption of indigenous construction practices, and consideration of regional climatic conditions. Notable examples of Indo-Saracenic architecture include the General Post Office in Bombay (1909), Central Offices in Poona (1912), and Post and Telegraph Offices in Patna (1915).

During the peak of the colonial empire, Vadodara, known then as Baroda Residency, was ruled by the Gaekwads under British suzerainty, granting them local autonomy. Under the reign of Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III, Vadodara witnessed a significant architectural transformation, particularly with the popularization of the Indo-Saracenic style, spearheaded by Robert Chisholm, a prolific consulting architect of P.W.D. Chisholm’s designs in Vadodara, characterized by a blend of various Indo-Saracenic elements, showcased his expertise in harmonizing visual composition with material construction. These structures served as instruments for Gaekwad’s ambition to portray Baroda as an opulent and progressive semi-autonomous state in colonial India.  Notable examples of such public buildings with opulent architectural features include Nyay Mandir (1896) and Khanderao Market (1906). In contrast, government office buildings such as Old Kothi building (1876) and Record Tower (1888) featured long-linear massive blocks punctured with semi-circular arched openings, minimal ornamentation, and horizontal bands of ivory white and red bricks, emphasizing a more functional aesthetic. This juxtaposition of architectural styles, where the Indo-Saracenic style signified cultural and political grandeur, while the restrained, functional style reflected a pragmatic approach, highlights the link between architectural design and building functionality. Making the case of Vadodara, it illustrates how architectural style aligned with the broader purposes that these buildings served. 

Influenced by Indo-Saracenic style, Vadodara’s ‘New Collector Office’ exemplifies the making of a contemporary governmental architecture. The building’s planning features two linear blocks constructed with a frame structure, emphasizing its high-priority functional needs for day-to-day administrative work. While the layout aligns to colonial-era standard planning, employing straightforward strategies to address functional needs, its facade design warrants critical analysis and further reflection. This building presents a ‘false façade’ with trefoil arches, balustrades, and vertical jalis, which strategically obscure the main structure composed of a plain facade. The arches and balustrades, fitted between spans of the outer frame structure to create the illusion of a long linear balcony, and the vertical jalis fitted between the walls topping pinnacle domes to conceal ducts and services, results in a poorly masked aesthetic. These elements, intended for visual appeal, lack authenticity as the structural integrity of arches, jalis, and domes is entirely rejected in this case. Made from prefabricated cement panels and reinforced concrete, these elements lost the genuine craftsmanship from which they were historically originated. Additionally, the attempt to mimic stone quoins with cement panels, combined with the exterior finish of ivory-white and red brick-colored paint, further fails, reflecting a superficial imitation rather than an authentic architectural expression. 

Incorporating our rich architectural heritage into contemporary public buildings, to revive or remind us of our cultural legacy, remains a complex and debated issue in the Indian Subcontinent. The architectural grandeur of the past, while reflecting authoritarian superiority, also demonstrated structural integrity and craftsmanship. Attempts to continue this legacy today, without in-depth knowledge of merging pragmatism with aesthetics, results in cases like the New Collector Office – a representative of many such structures commissioned by the government in our present context. Thus, the critical question persists: Should we superficially imitate historical elements in contemporary buildings, or delve deeper into craftsmanship and structural integrity for a more authentic cultural connection? Or ask us if there is a genuine necessity and meaningful purpose in integrating these historical styles into modern buildings that contrast with today’s democratic context?