Mumbai's Art Deco buildings get World Heritage tag

Agencies
June 30, 2018

Mumbai, Jun 30: Mumbai's Art Deco buildings, believed to be the world's second-largest collection after Miami, were added on Saturday to UNESCO's World Heritage List alongside the city's better-known Victorian Gothic architecture.

The decision was approved at a UNESCO meeting in the Bahraini capital Manama.

A not-for-profit team of enthusiasts are in the process of documenting every single one of Mumbai's Art Deco treasures but they estimate there may be more than 200 across India's bustling financial capital.

The majority of them, built on reclaimed land between the early 1930s and early 1950s, are clustered together in the south of the coastal city where they stand in stark contrast to Victorian Gothic structures.

The two vastly different architectural traditions face off against each other across the popular Oval Maidan playing field, where enthusiastic young cricketers hone their skills.

On one side lie imposing and rather austere 19th-century buildings housing the Bombay High Court and Mumbai University, with their spires and lancet windows.

On the other side stand sleeker buildings boasting curved corners, balconies, vertical lines and exotic motifs.

They were built by wealthy Indians who sent their architects to Europe to come up with modern designs different from those of their colonial rulers.

"Mumbai's Art Deco buildings have always lived in the shadow of the Victorian Gothic structures built by the British but this recognition by UNESCO today helps elevate Art Deco to its rightful place," Atul Kumar, the founder of Art Deco Mumbai said.

"Across a 22-acre stretch of playing field, we have two distinct architectural styles. One symbolic of India's colonisers. The other representing the aspirations of a new, wealthy Indian class."

Mumbai's Art Deco buildings house residential properties, commercial offices, hospitals and single-screen movie theatres, including the popular Regal and Eros cinemas.

Their characteristics include elegant Deco fonts, marble floors and spiral staircases.

Most of the Art Deco buildings, including along the three-kilometre-long palm-fringed Marine Drive promenade, are five storeys high and painted in bright colours such as yellow, pink and blue.

Some of Mumbai's most recognisable buildings are built in the Victorian Gothic style, including the city's famous main train station, which used to be known as Victoria Terminus.

The Bombay High Court, Mumbai University and the headquarters of the city's civic authority are other examples of that style.

They were built in the 19th century as Britain strengthened its hold over India. Many of the edifices boast tinted windows, flying buttresses and ornately carved figures.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com web desk
June 16,2020

New Delhi, Jun 16: Despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi led government’s attempt to downplay the border dispute with China, matters have heated up unprecedentedly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC)- the effective Sino-India border in Eastern Ladakh. 

The country has lost three precious lives – an army officer and two soldiers. The last time blood was spilled on the LAC, before the latest episode, was 45 years ago when the Chinese ambushed an Assam Rifles patrol in Tulung La.

India had lost four soldiers on October 20, 1975 in Tulung La, the last time bullets were fired on the India-China border though both the countries witnessed bitter stand-offs later at Sumdorong Chu valley in 1987, Depsang in 2013, Chumar in 2014 and Doklam in 2017.

Between 1962 and 1975, the biggest clash between India and China took place in Nathu La pass in 1967 when reports suggest that around 80 Indian soldiers were killed and many more Chinese personnel.

While three soldiers, including a Commanding Officer, were killed in the latest episode in Galwan Valley, the government describes it as a "violent clash" and does not mention opening fire.

New Delhi described the locality where the 1975 incident took place as "well within" its territory only to be rebuffed by Beijing as "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong".

The Ministry of External Affairs had then said that the Chinese had crossed the LAC and ambushed the soldiers while Beijing claimed the Indians entered their territory and did not return despite warnings.

The Indian government maintained that the ambush on the Assam Rifles' patrol in 1975 took place "500 metres south of Tulung" on the border between India and Tibet and "therefore in Indian territory". It said Chinese soldiers "penetrating" Indian territory implied a "change in China's position" on the border question but the Chinese denied this and blamed India for the incident.

The US diplomatic cables quoted an Indian military intelligence officer saying that the Chinese had erected stone walls on the Indian side of Tulung La and from these positions fired several hundred rounds at the Indian patrol.

"Four of the Indians had gone into a leading position while two (the ones who escaped) remained behind. The senior military intelligence officer emphasised that the soldiers on the Indian patrol were from the area and had patrolled that same region many times before," the cable said.

One of the US cables showed that former US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought details of the October 1975 clash "without approaching the host governments on actual location of October 20 incident". He also wanted to know what ground rules were followed regarding the proximity of LAC by border patrols.

A cable sent from the US mission in India on November 4, 1975 appeared to have doubts about the Chinese account saying it was "highly defensive".

"Given the unsettled situation on the sub-continent, particularly in Bangladesh, both Chinese and Indian authorities have authorised stepped up patrols along the disputed border. The clash may well have ensued when two such patrols unexpectedly encountered each other," it said.

Another cable from China on the same day quoted another October 1974 cable, which spoke about Chinese officials being concerned for long that "some hotheaded person on the PRC (People's Republic of China) might provoke an incident that could lead to renewed Sino-Indian hostilities. It went on to say that this clash suggested that "such concerns and apprehensions are not unwarranted".

According to the United States diplomatic cables, Chinese Foreign Ministry on November 3, 1975 disputed the statement of the MEA spokesperson, who said the incident took place inside Indian territory.

The Chinese had said "sheer reversal of black and white and confusion of right and wrong". In its version of the 1975 incident, they said Indian troops crossed the LAC at 1:30 PM at Tulung Pass on the Eastern Sector and "intruded" into their territory when personnel at the Civilian Checkpost at Chuna in Tibet warned them to withdraw.

Ignoring this, they claimed, Indian soldiers made "continual provocation and even opened fire at the Chinese civilian checkpost personnel, posing a grave threat to the life of the latter. The Chinese civilian checkpost personnel were obliged to fire back in self defence."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson had also said they told the Indian side that they could collect the bodies "anytime" and on October 28, collected the bodies, weapons and ammunition and "signed a receipt".

The US cables from the then USSR suggested that the official media carried reports from Delhi on the October 1975 incident and they cited only Indian accounts of the incident "ridiculing alleged Chinese claims that the Indians crossed the line and opened fire first".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 7,2020

Visakhapatnam, May 7: Unconscious children being carried by parents in their arms, people laying on roads, health workers scrambling to attend to those affected by the styrene vapour leak and residents fleeing were some of the scenes that played out near here on Thursday, bringing back grim memories of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.

The leak of styrene, a chemical used to make synthetic rubber and resins, among others, occurred in the wee hours of Thursday while people were still fast asleep.

Women and children were seen lying on roads struggling to breath, reminiscent of the infamous Bhopal gas tragedy when a leak from the Union Carbide plant left around 3,500 dead and many maimed.

The worst-hit Gopalapatnam village reverberated with cries of people for help.

Many people fell unconscious during their sleep, a villager said.

Affected people, suffering writ large on their faces, were rushed to hospitals in autorickshaws and on two wheelers.

Visakhapatnam Collector Vinay Chand said 20 ambulances were pressed into service as soon information about the gas leak was received.

Exposure to styrene, also known as ethenylbenzene, vinylbenzene can affect the central nervous system (CNS), causing headache, fatigue, weakness, and depression.

It is primarily used in the production of polystyrene plastics and resins.

The gas leak took place at LG Polymers chemical plant.

LG Polymers was established in 1961 as "Hindustan Polymers" for manufacturing Polystyrene and its co-polymers at Visakhapatnam. It merged with McDowell & Co. Ltd of UB Group in 1978, according to the company's website.

Taken over by LG Chem (South Korea), Hindustan Polymers was renamed LG Polymers India Private Limited (LGPI) in July, 1997.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 29,2020

New Delhi, Feb 29: The father of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma, whose body was pulled out of a drain in northeast Delhi's riot-hit Chand Bagh, complained to police that goons had assembled at the residence of former AAP counselor Tahir Hussain and were throwing petrol bombs from the rooftop.

According to the FIR which was registered on Thursday on the basis of the complaint lodged by Ankit's father Ravinder, the goons were also firing from the rooftop.

On Tuesday, Ankit returned from his office at 5 pm and then went outside to buy groceries. When he did not return, the family started looking for him and later filed a missing report, the FIR stated.

They got to know from their neighbours that a body has been recovered from a drain… later it was found to be that of Anikt, it said, adding the body had multiple stab injuries on the face, head, back, and chest.

The family has alleged in the FIR that it was Hussain and the goons at his residence who killed Ankit. In the FIR, Hussain has been accused of murder, destruction of evidence and abduction.

Soon after the FIR was registered on Thursday, the AAP suspended Tahir Hussain from the primary membership of the party till the police completed its probe.

The death toll in Delhi's communal violence rose to 42 on Friday as the situation showed some signs of returning to normalcy and clouds of smoke cleared to reveal the extent of the damage from the worst riots in the city in over three decades.

A total of 148 FIRs have been registered and 630 people have been either arrested or detained so far in connection with the communal violence, a Delhi Police spokesperson said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.