FOR decades our understanding of cultural heritage was restricted to the monumental, the magnificent structures that were commissioned by monarchs, despots and high priests. It was the culture and architecture of the elite that defined how we perceived the past. Wielding power to attain their ambitious plans, the monarchs required the surplus resources of society to achieve their grand designs. The plight of the workers and slaves are often untold stories of the anonymous. It is, however, the anonymous masses who are the bearers of cultural heritage: the creators, the preservers and the restorers. We are still in transition from changing our focus from the monumental to that which is the best representation of how the general society lived.

When we list the most important cultural heritage properties, such as the rather popular new Wonders of the World, we come up with the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, the Roman Colosseum and the Christ Redeemer in Rio. The list includes the Inca citadel of Machu Picchu, capital of the Nabatean Kingdom of Petra and the last Mayan city of Chichen Itza. This list would probably continue with the Pyramids of Giza, Angkor and other incredible masterpieces of architecture and construction technology. These provide examples of the pinnacles of human achievement.

Monumental structures are not only linked to an absolute central power. We have examples in the modern era with the Eiffel Tower, Chandigarh Capitol and the Sydney Opera House. These were built by democratic governments, though possibly with the motivation of national aggrandization or creation of identity. The process of implementation would have changed and possibly there might have been some say by the public on how such a monument would be created. However, none of the above mentioned buildings would hardly be considered to be based on traditional technology and materials. So how does one explain heritage which is largely disconnected from history?

There has been a slow transformation of our understanding of cultural heritage to go beyond the exclusive, the expression of wealth and power of the rulers. Just looking at World Heritage we see inscribed not only the exclusive palaces such as the Forbidden City in Beijing but also historic settlements such as Lijiang. Inscriptions not only include the palace gardens at Suzhou but also the rice terraces of Honghe Hani. This has profound implications, since settlements and agricultural landscapes are living heritage where people carry out their daily livelihood activities. Their value lies in the interaction between the cultural heritage property and the people living there. In a certain sense, the local communities become part of the cultural heritage property.

 

These living cultural heritage properties require an entirely different approach to management or governance. The inclusiveness of the communities in the actual definition of the property requires their involvement in the management. This means that such living properties cannot be preserved in the same manner as is generally employed for monumental heritage. The tendency of putting up a fence and not allowing people to use a deteriorating monument might still be valid for such cases, but an entirely different approach is required for living heritage. The communities must participate in the continuity of the living heritage whereby the value of the settlements or the agricultural landscapes is dependent on retaining their original function. Conservation can only be achieved through the regular intervention of the communities within the heritage property.

Nepal has always been an interesting example of interplay between regional politics and internal wrangling for power. A remarkable situation conspired during the Malla period, particularly in the late 15th century when the Nepal Valley, by which name Kathmandu Valley was known, was divided into the three city states of Kantipur, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur. Though related to each other, the three thrones were regularly contested; however, a certain protocol was maintained. Alternate procedures were put in place to collaborate on any activities dealing with external threats as well as trade. This can be seen in Nuwakot, a town located to the north of Nepal Valley where each of the cities had their own palatial building from where the trade with Tibet was controlled.

 

Of particular interest is the competition that developed between the three city states on which one would become the most beautiful, ornate and endowed by multiple deities. The Malla kings built wonderful ornate palaces; however, their grandeur was not gained by height, a design attribute reserved for the temples, but through ornamentation. Dacchi Appa bricks were specially designed to hide the mortar joints and provide a shimmering oily exposed surface. These special bricks were only used for temples and houses belonging to the royalty. Sometimes special provisions were made allowing important nobility and the prime minister or Mukhtiyar to use some for their residence.

The woodwork, however, provided the real status symbol. Most traditional buildings – whether palaces, temples, monasteries or residences – boasted of intricately carved windows and status was indicated by the number of such windows. For example in the early 18th century, the Malla King, Bhupatindra Malla of Bhaktapur, built his palace with fifty-five windows in a row.

The real competition between the three city states was in the construction of temples. A fascinating story is connected to the introduction of the goddess Taleju Bhawani to the Kathmandu Valley. It is said that Taleju Bhawani was from Tulajapur (now in Maharashtra). The Chalukya Emperors of Karnataka used to raid areas as far north as Mithila in the foothills of the Himalayas. The area of Simroungadh remained under the rule of a Karnataka King, Harishingha Deva, until the Turkic rulers of Delhi under Gheyas-ud-din Tughlaq attached Simroungadh in 1352. Harishingha Deva fled to the hills landing up in Bhaktapur with his most precious possession, a kalasha (holy pot) representing the mystical and powerful yantra (an object of tantric worship) of his family’s tutelary deity. A temple was built for the deity within the palace precincts of Bhaktapur and even today Mul Chowk where the deity resides is the most sacred and well protected part of the palace.

 

Taleju Bhawani became the titular goddess of the Malla kings. The kings of Kantipur and Lalitpur needed their own Taleju temples. In 1564 King Mahendra Malla of Kantipur built his own temple within his palace compound. The temple was built on an 8.5 metre high plinth with the gajur (pinnacle) of the massive three tiered temple rising another 23.5 metres. The total height of 32 metres was achieved so as to ensure that a visual link was possible to the Taleju temple in Bhaktapur.

A particularly interesting king of Kantipur was Pratap Malla who ruled Kathmandu between 1641 and 1674. He was probably the most enigmatic as well as most controversial ruler within the already charged political landscape of the Kathmandu Valley. Pratap Malla was a patron of the arts and of architecture. During his reign a large number of temples were constructed, statues erected and other artistic works created. He is known to have built the temple of Guheshwari and offered a golden umbrella to the Pashupati temple. He also installed an earlier Lichhavi period statue of Kal Bhairav, which was found in the fields north of the city, in the square outside his palace.

Pratap Malla was the one to create the Seto Machhindranath chariot festival. His early expression of ego can be seen in the Chaysin Dega, an octagonal temple built in 1648 with statues of Vishnu and his two consorts that greatly resembled himself and his two wives. The Swayambhu hillock was a further location for Pratap Malla to get involved with buildings closely linked to his interest in tantrism. He built a better access road with a bridge and staircase and donated a wonderful large vajra which is placed on a pedestal at the top of the staircase. He also built the twin tantric shikara temples of Pratappur and Anantapur. His interest in tantric powers was further depicted through his involvement in the Santipur shrine as recorded in an inscription dated 1658.

 

The Durbar Squares around the palaces of the three kings were strewn with the temples of various deities. Each king added his own structures depending on his belief, fancy or, in certain cases, links to a particular event. However, this changed dramatically when Kathmandu was conquered by Prithvi Narayan Shah in 1768 after two decades of manoeuvring on the outskirts of the valley. He established his capital in the Hanuman Dhoka Palace in Kantipur. From then on priority was given only to Kathmandu and not the other two cities.

Kathmandu seamlessly obtained a new ruling dynasty, the Shahs. The new conquering martial clans had a less developed cultural expression, particularly in comparison with the highly evolved religious, social and architectural Newar society of Kathmandu Valley. This was particularly the case in architecture, and initially the Shahs used the local Newari craftsmen as well as design and technology. There was, however, a decisive change in the palace architecture since Prithvi Narayan Shah commissioned the palace towers to be constructed.

 

At the Hanuman Dhoka Palace in Kathmandu, a building was constructed around Lohan Chowk with towers at each corner representing the four cities in the Kathmandu Valley that he had just conquered: Kantipur, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur and Kirtipur. Each had a different design. For example the Kirtipur tower had a curved metal roof that showed influences of possibly certain regional Mogul style. The most impressive structural achievement was, however, the nine-storey tower representing Kantipur. This tower, which is now referred to as the Basantapur tower, is provided the most prominent location to the southwest of Lohan Chowk where Vastu principles suggest placing the rooms of the head of the house or the person in command and this corner is supposed to be the tallest.

This impressive tower required the introduction of additional structural measures since the Malla palaces only had monuments of residential scale. They used simple technology of timber ties and wooden pegs to hold the structures together. A tower, however, required more elaborate technology and so timber framing was introduced throughout the structure, even though the lower floors had massive brick masonry walls. This technology reminds us of the buildings in the Kashmir area; however, research is lacking.

The other cities were largely neglected by the new ruling dynasty. Even when the Rana prime ministers usurped power and became the de facto rulers, they focused on Kathmandu. This became apparent particularly after the destruction caused by the 8.4 magnitude Great Nepal Bihar Earthquake of 1934. There was extensive damage caused, but according to a report prepared by Major General Brahma Shamsher Rana, a systematic approach was put in place for reconstruction. Priority was given to the people and monuments were only restored later.

 

We, however, now see that Bhaktapur and Lalitpur were largely neglected with only minimum interventions having been carried out. In Bhaktapur, the 55 window palace was hastily rebuilt, but with reuse of the same materials which didn’t allow them to rebuild it as it was previously. This was done only in the next restoration carried out in the 1990s. Some temples were never rebuilt such as the Hari Shankar temple of which only the entrance lions remain. There was the Fasidega temple which retained its grand stepped plinth but instead of the shikhara style temple a small shrine with a domed roof was built to protect the sanctum. The situation in Lalitpur was similar with temples such as Bhaidega having only the domed cubicle shrine until it was damaged in the 2015 earthquake and is now being rebuilt to its original design.

In Kathmandu the situation was rather different. Not only were the buildings restored but the entire area around the place was upgraded. The damaged urban fabric west of the Basantpur Tower was cleared to provide a large square, possibly to allow for space to carry out certain celebrations but also to better view the impressive Hanuman Dhoka Palace. A new road was cut through the urban fabric to connect the palace to the parade grounds outside the city. These new streets were lined with stucco covered neoclassical facades mimicking grand European cities. The grandeur and pomp expressed the power of the monarchy or, in this case, the dominating Rana regime.

The 2015 Gorkha earthquake brought with it a new republican constitution. The king and autocratic prime ministers were removed. A culture that had so far been dominated by the deified image of the monarch had to adapt quickly to wrangling politicians. After the earthquake, continuity of cultural heritage, both the reconstruction of the tangible and the recovery of the intangible, depended on a government that was not equipped for the task. Cultural sentiment had been used by the rulers to ensure support from their subjects. This was hardly worthy of the prime minister of a fledgling republic to emulate. Some major adaptation was required, though this was not going to be an easy task.

With the monarch gone, many rituals that were established to substantiate the king’s position and powers have become meaningless. That is unless this is seen in abstraction and the powers that were seized by the ruler are again perceived in a more democratic manner. This is the opportunity to transform the cultural practices, along with post-earthquake rehabilitation, to highlight the contribution of the local communities in creating and maintaining the cultural heritage. A democratic government cannot just fill the vacuum left by a disposed king. It has to hand over the responsibilities to local community members, artisans, priests, the caretakers and guardians. Only through this transformation will continuity of the cultural heritage be ensured.