Adaptive Reuse as a Sustainable Conservation Strategy

The idea of providing rest spaces for travelers, or for monks, was always present within individual homes in Indian cities or villages since the advent of Buddhism in the 6th century BC. Buddhist viharas along major trade routes often catered to travelers, merchants and pilgrims alike. In India, even private individuals built sarais or chaultries as an act of charity. For emperors, this became a higher duty on a large scale, towards their subjects and land at large. To provide for travelers crisscrossing their land was prescribed as one of the primary duties of a king.

Sarais provided rooms for sleeping, bathing, storing goods, drinking-water wells, places of worship and guards for security. Sarais were large and spacious ‘abodes of shelter and rest’, situated at appropriate points along the journey of a traveler.

Sher Shah Suri, the Emperor who built a significant stretch of the Grand Trunk Road, constructed 1700 sarais throughout his reign. This tradition continued until the Mughal rule with Babur, Akbar, Jehangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb building hundreds of sarais along the Agra-Lahore Highway. By the end of the Mughal rule there were sarais at an average distance of every 5 kos (ancient standard unit of distance) or 15 kms along the Grand Trunk Road. Only a few of these survive today.

1. BADARPUR SARAI, NEW DELHI

It was thought to have been built in the period of Emperor Jehangir in the 16th century, on the part of the road constructed by Ghiyas-ud-di Tughlaq in the 13th century, which connected the city of Delhi to the Grand Trunk Road. The sarai was a ‘custom-clearing’ sarai and has a unique typology of a double compound joined with a common gateway. Only three gateways remain of this sarai, with a central road connecting them. It now accommodates the entire Badarpur ‘village’. The grand scale of the courtyard now squeezes an entire town into it with hundreds of houses and shops.  

2. ARAB SARAI, NEW DELHI

This sarai is attached to Humayun’s Tomb Complex and belongs to the mausoleum-cum-garden sarai typology with four quadrants. There is a mausoleum, a baoli and a garden within the sarai enclosure. One quadrant was considered to be a mandi (market place) called Mihr Bahu Market, which was added later. It is believed to be named after the Chief Eunuch at the Court of Jehangir.

Only a few walls remain intact in the first quadrant, the courtyard now housing the Industrial Training Institute (ITI). The other gateways are conserved beautifully by the Aga Khan Foundation, as a part of the Nizammuddin Urban Revival Initiative. The sarai attracts very few tourists as people are naturally directed towards the grander Humayun’s Tomb.

3. LASHKARI SARAI, NEAR LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

This is the only surviving Mughal sarai along the Agra-Lahore route built during the reign of Aurangzeb in 1670-71. The sarai is in the middle of large fields owned by the villagers. Due to this, it is now slightly cut-off from the NH2 (Grand Trunk Road), and can be accessed from the road by a narrow unpaved path. Reportedly, the sarai was in use until about 1884. The gates are now enclosed and no visitors are allowed as the sarai is declared unsafe due to structural damage and some illegal activities.

An old report mentions that the land between the gateways is being farmed by the villagers. Some state that there was a dispute over the site in 1962 and the High Court awarded the courtyard space to the village, while the structure was given to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Sarais were large and spacious ‘abodes of shelter and rest’

4. DORAHA SARAI, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

The name doraha translates to – ‘two ways’; indicating that two important routes diverged from this town.

It is protected under the Department of Archaeology, Punjab. The western side of the sarai is in complete ruins and the eastern side is damaged in parts. Bricks from the sarai have been carried away by the nearby villagers to build their own houses. The roof spaces of the gateways and other ruins have become hubs for illegal activities.

5. NURMAHAL SARAI, JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

This sarai was commissioned by the order of the Empress Nur Jahan (one of the wives of Emperor Jehangir) and was executed by Nawab Zakariya Khan, of the Jalandhar province in 1619-1621. The sarai is a typical ‘wayside sarai’, a common type seen along the roadsides between big cities or urban centres. It was in use till about 1884, but is now a protected monument under the ASI. The northern side of the sarai is completely destroyed and now has a series of new shops facing the town side. The hammam has been converted into a rest house by the Public Works Department. The sarai has become an active film shoot location in recent years.

6. DAKHNI SARAI, JALANDHAR, PUNJAB

Said to be built in 1640 by Ali Mardan Khan, Emperor Shah Jahan’s general, recent studies however suggest that the sarai must have been built by some Dakhni/Deccani noble. This sarai is in the middle of large mustard fields, completely away from the village and even the main road. In the beginning of the 20th century, the sarai was used as an asylum for leprosy patients. The sarai is now protected under the ASI. The lawns within the courtyard are well-kept and it is one of the better-preserved sarais along the highway.

7. AMANAT KHAN SARAI, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB

Amanat Khan, the calligrapher of the famous Taj Mahal, constructed this sarai. Other than a master calligrapher, he was also a royal librarian in the king’s court. It was built in 1640-41 and is about 12 miles from Lahore, Pakistan. This makes it possibly the last sarai in modern India – before the GT road crosses over to Lahore in Pakistan. This sarai is unique, as it is truly a ‘living sarai’. The entire village now lies within the sarai enclosure, with around 400-500 people staying in the houses. There are new doors fitted to the sarai walls, completely new brick houses on old plinths and shops within the courtyard. It is protected under the ASI body.

Looking at the current condition of these and similar sarais along the road, it raises three primary issues that need to be addressed in discussions around caravansarais in the Punjab Province. These also point towards deeper concerns that conservation of Indian cultural heritage struggles with:

Change in Religion

These caravansarais were designed architecturally to suit certain religious ideologies and needs. Once there is a change in the religious/political context of the place, the use of the structure loses its meaning and purpose. There is a need to relook at the change in religious context and its effects on the significance of the sarais

Loss of Physical Context

The disengagement with the road, its primary physical context, has made the sarais objects standing in the middle of nowhere. There is a need to relook at the physical contexts of these structures to re-imagine their significance in the newer physical contexts.

Use Appropriation

Other Mughal structures like palaces, forts, tombs and mosques are active tourist sites due to their large scale or being in continuous use by the community. In present times, as the use of a sarai is unnecessary, there are difficulties in re-appropriating its significance.

Recognition of the ‘Sarai’ as a Formal Typology

Due to the loss in its religious, physical and user context, the sarai as a typology suffers to be recognised as one with potential for conservation measures. Hence, their significance lies in looking at them in an integrated manner and in developing systems and uses, which will conserve them by relooking at their changed contexts.

Adaptive reuse of caravansarai as sustainable conservation strategy

All such caravansarais are often in lesser developed towns and villages, which are not well-known. Most of them are disconnected from their primary physical context, which is the Grand Trunk Road. Each one of them is in a different physical, social and cultural context at present. Due to this, just restoring them to their original form will not attract any economic or sustainable benefits as visitors and tourists might not be drawn towards them. Sarais like Nurmahal, Lashkari, Doraha and Dakhni show high potential for development as attractive local tourist sites. Badarpur and Amanat Khan Sarai, both ‘living sarais’, need to be adapted to the surrounding needs of the communities using them, without further loss in their historical and architectural fabric. The Arab sarai proves to be a better example, with efforts towards conservation of a part of the structure; however, better integration into the wider Humayun’s Tomb complex is still a concern. An increase in local awareness of these sarais is also suggested.

Each of the sarais is of different typologies and contributes to the architectural vocabulary of the cultural heritage of the country. There is a need to open a conversation of the ‘adaptive re-use approach’ as an effective sustainable tool for their revival. The use should be compatible and should not damage the cultural significance of the sarais in any way. Some of the examples of other caravansarais in the world have been able to successfully analyse the typology of the ‘sarai’ and find contemporary uses for them. They have been converted into hotels, restaurants, markets, museums and also cultural centres visited by people traveling on those routes. By urging the potential re-use of caravansarais, a new lens is added to the conservation approach of the heritage of the Grand Trunk Road, as a whole.

By urging the potential re-use of caravansarais, a new lens is added to the conservation approach

Adaptive reuse of Historical Structures in India: The issues involved

India has had an illustrious and rather layered history, all of which are reflected in such heritage structures. This has also often led to the danger of manipulating history and using heritage to tell a specific narrative of the past. This might have deep rooted effects on communities, unless their stories are not narrated to them correctly. The Grand Trunk Road symbolises the contribution of many regimes, many cultures and many communities of Northern India throughout the years. This indeed proves to be a challenge while introducing the concept of Adaptive Reuse in this layered scenario, while acknowledging each of these contributions.

The concept of adaptive reuse for the conservation of historic buildings is still not an active discussion in India. Developing countries face more challenges in adaptive reuse and sustainability. Difficulty in establishing a sense of place and identity, hindrance of social inclusiveness and continuity of local community life are some of the key challenges in the context of the Punjab Province.

Another challenge of adaptive reuse in these cases is the question of ownership. The ambiguity arising from the miscommunication between the state bodies and the local bodies leads to the neglect of many historical buildings. This is the case in the Lashkari sarai where the main structure belongs to the government but the land within the sarai courtyard has been given to the villagers.

Discussions around conservation of historic buildings in India have been evolving, albeit at a slower pace. Questioning of cultural biases is necessarily one of the primary challenges, other than the issues of funding and ownership. In this scenario, concepts of sustainable adaptive re-use need to be introduced slowly. Conservation must strive for functional integration, community involvement and effective reuse. It is essential to understand that all these threads are interlinked. A more long-term, thoughtful and sustainable solution cannot be drawn out without addressing the surrounding issues.

The treatment towards caravansarais in the Punjab Province mimics some broader conservation issues. There is a need to shift the focus on community values and associations of the sarais. The concentration on just the conservation of physical fabric is not adequate and newer debates need to emerge. This practice is beginning to be reflected in universal heritage debates too, where arguments state that the traditional dominance of fabric across conservation should end and, instead, the focus should be on a building’s communal significance, because every value associated with a building is assigned by the people (i.e. community).

The concept of ‘adaptive re-use’ allows for the acknowledgment and re-engagement with the past of the building, whilst allowing for newer additions sought through contemporary needs. This makes it a truly sustainable approach and enhances the communal value. However, there have been roadblocks in this approach, and it is necessary to get to the root of the actual social causes of these issues. The preliminary step now is to open an alternative discussion around the conservation approach and question the biases that they currently hold.

Any heritage conservation approach in India will have to call out these issues of alienation. A fear of debate in conservation approaches diverts the efforts in the wrong direction, which unconsciously affect a large population of the country and cannot be left unaddressed. Research carried out to gain a clearer understanding of the diverse cultural roles that have played a part in the narrative of the country have the potential to promote a healthier integration of all minority groups. This social integration is essential for the concept of adaptive reuse to be understood as a very useful tool in a sustainable conservation practice.

All photos: Apoorva Iyengar